No-one is going to abandon their 20 year old battery-electric wrecks. Even if they did, the batteries (dead or not) are worth money to the recycler. The reason 95% of car batteries are recycled is that it is cheaper to strip out the lead and re-smelt it for new batteries than to mine fresh lead - chances are the lead in your car battery has been round the clock more than once already.
And, btw, do the math on fuel consumption during the three year life of a battery pack - how many dollars would you otherwise spend on gas over that period?
And how do they diconnect the building? I can imagine the blimp will go up like a cork once the building is disconnected.
1. remove gas from the bags to reduce buoyancy (discharge overboard or compress and pump to storage tanks), and direct propeller thrust upwards to move the ship downwards;
2. stop doing this when the cargo touches the deck and the lifting strops go slack;
3. disconnect the cargo lifting strops;
4.use the engines to gain height and move off site, reflating gas bags as required.
Rumors of the death of politics are greatly exaggerated.
It is necessary to have some basic control measures in society, and at a minimum this needs to include: adherence to the principle of the rule of law; the creation and maintenance of a fair and equitable body of law; and some means of enabling the people to express their views (whether their views are acted upon is another matter) without punishment. A pluralistic democracy has been found to be a reasonably effective way of achieving this.
One of the downsides of democracy is that ideas can be (and frequently are) put into practice simply because the people have been persuaded that they are good, irrespective of whether or not they are even workable let alone beneficial. Persuasion is usually achieved by promising the people money for nothing or requiring less effort from them to progress. Socialism is a classic case in point.
Although today communism has been comprehensively discredited, socialism and European-style social democracy are still powerful political forces, and are up against conservatism (whether compassionate, mainstream or radical) and libertarianism, as well as the fringe environmentalist and nationalist elements of society. This debate isn't going away any time soon, whatever the relative merits of each philosophy, and so politics will remain as long as we live in democracies.
The death of politics is possible, but it really depends on which way society develops. A libertarian capitalist system will tend to result in a slimmed down political process and fewer politicians and lobbyists, simply because the scope of government activity is reduced. On the other hand, a more left-leaning system will increase the number of politicians, lobbyists and public servants as the scope of governmental activity at local, state and federal levels is increased (by expanding the provision of public health care, welfare, increased petty regulation, and so on).
Whatever the relative merits of the Presidential candidates this time around, this is the basic choice on offer - from the Democrats, increased regulation & interference and taxation to pay for it; from the Republicans, probably no major reductions but equally no serious increases in any of these.
Since there will always be a demand from part of society for "free" health care, welfare payments and an easier working life, and a contrary demand from other parts of society to avoid the social, taxation and regulatory burdens that this would impose, there is for some time going to be a healthy political debate on these choices and the various ways of implementing them.
My point was about welfare, not healthcare. As a matter of fact, Britain spends about 18% of GDP on welfare payments *excluding* healthcare. This is the real economic problem for Britain.
Technology *can* affect the political environment, but I don't think it actually is. The problems you identify are real, but the cause has nothing to do with technology. I doubt that the solution will, either.
A closer approximation would be 1950s - 1960s Britain, rather than the Roman Empire.
Americans should look eastward and see what became of Britain, consider why, and make sure it doesn't happen in America. The choice is still there, and the example is plain.
Quasi-socialist policy designed to create a self-perpetuating welfare-junkie underclass which needs the constant attention (and funding and thus political control) of the government is NOT in the best interests of the American people (or anyone else, for that matter).
In any society at any time, some proportion of the people will be in need of some form of public welfare, and it is a mark of a civilized society that a moderate, prudent and appropriate provision is made, but only to the extent of holding out a helping hand to a temporarily stumbling "Joe Six-Pack". Once Joe has got off the ground and is on his own feet again, the hand needs to be withdrawn, and not (as in Britain) kept there with consequent ongoing cost, regulation and control.
Technology is not disconnecting the people from the political process. What is happening in American politics is that:
1. The party machines and lobby groups are growing more sophisticated and are extending their control at the expense of that of the private citizen;
2. Government has over the past decades extended its reach into areas of private and community life that were previously left alone because it is frequently felt that increasingly complex matters require increasingly detailed regulation;
3. The success of the US economy has increased national and average personal wealth significantly, and this has inevitably engendered a sense of guilt and social responsibility towards the less fortunate. This manifests itself in a consensus that public welfare provision should be expanded (by whatever degree) - inevitably, this means more government, more funds, more scope for manipulation, and decreased political diversity as the consensus on political acceptability narrows.
Each of these leads to a more complex government apparatus, which is of course going to attempt to preserve its own livelihood. It also means more jobs & influence for the mayor's/governor's/president's buddies, so the average politician is going to be disinclined to suggest radical reform.
The range of choices open to the voter diminishes, and so fewer voters bother to cast their ballot (or even register to vote)
This process has nothing to do with technology. It happened in Europe in the early part of the 20th century, and is now happening in America. It took Britain 50 years to build a complex welfare system that imposed (and still imposes) a huge drain on the national economy, and it took another 40 years to realise that it had to be reformed and scaled back. This is still going on, and will continue for years to come.
It is of course possible to arrange for frequent county, state and federal plebiscites on a variety of matters, and it is easier to do this using the internet than with formal voting stations. However, the idea of representative democracy is that the elected representatives of the people make the decisions on their behalf, and such widespread popular voting would make this system irrelevant. In any case, would you want to have to vote three times a week every week?
The cause of the problem is not technology. The answer is not technology. The cause is bigger government, and the answer is smaller government. Government at any level should only be doing what (a) only government (and not the people themselves) can do, and (b) to do this only when it is actually necessary (and not just desirable).
Using the energy from nitrogen (or releasing the energy used in compressing and liquifying it beforehand), although clean at the point of immediate use, is wasteful. You need large liquifaction plants and cryogenic storage facilities. Admittedly, the problem is less severe than with hydrogen, but it is the same kind of problem.
The short term answer is combined gasoline (or diesel)/electric systems similar to the Saturn automobile.
Medium term, it will be battery electric with small diesel or gas booster engines to provide increased range.
Longer term, it will be battery electric with fuel cell boosters or alcohol powered engine boosters.
There are two basic problems - the efficiency and cost of refining, distributing and storing the fuel & converting it to useful power, and environmental problems.
The last is the simplest one - as long as a carbon based fuel is used (gas, diesel, alcohol, coal, heavy oil) & burned at high temperature, there will be problems with NOx & CO/CO2 emissions. These are best dealt with by restricting their use wherever possible to fixed generation plant, which can have complex and highly effective emissions control gear not realistic for a mobile or small plant (e.g. a car or small generator).
Where mobile plant is necessary, it needs to be as clean as possible, which is most easily achieved by using it as little as possible. A small engine boosting an electric drive system is therefore a major step on the way. Most of the power generation needs to be done in large, fixed plant where it is much more efficient and clean.
The choice of fuel becomes less important as less is used, but gasoline and (especially) diesel, are filthy fuels, esp. when burned in limited air (inside a car engine). Cleaner combustion can be had by burning the fuel in excess air (e.g. to vaporize water to run a steam engine). Generally, alcohol is a cleaner fuel, as well as being infinitely renewable.
One might imagine a variety of designs on the market before they are whittled down to one or two basic options. Perhaps there will be a renewal of interest in steam vehicles, and some wacky designer might come up with a hybrid electric & alcohol-burning steam hybrid.
The use of liquid hydrogen (for combustion or for conversion in a fuel cell) is not so likely to happen because of cost and safety considerations. My money is on batteries and alcohol.
Slashdot Mirror
No-one is going to abandon their 20 year old battery-electric wrecks. Even if they did, the batteries (dead or not) are worth money to the recycler. The reason 95% of car batteries are recycled is that it is cheaper to strip out the lead and re-smelt it for new batteries than to mine fresh lead - chances are the lead in your car battery has been round the clock more than once already.
And, btw, do the math on fuel consumption during the three year life of a battery pack - how many dollars would you otherwise spend on gas over that period?
1. remove gas from the bags to reduce buoyancy (discharge overboard or compress and pump to storage tanks), and direct propeller thrust upwards to move the ship downwards;
2. stop doing this when the cargo touches the deck and the lifting strops go slack;
3. disconnect the cargo lifting strops;
4.use the engines to gain height and move off site, reflating gas bags as required.
duh...
Rumors of the death of politics are greatly exaggerated.
It is necessary to have some basic control measures in society, and at a minimum this needs to include: adherence to the principle of the rule of law; the creation and maintenance of a fair and equitable body of law; and some means of enabling the people to express their views (whether their views are acted upon is another matter) without punishment. A pluralistic democracy has been found to be a reasonably effective way of achieving this.
One of the downsides of democracy is that ideas can be (and frequently are) put into practice simply because the people have been persuaded that they are good, irrespective of whether or not they are even workable let alone beneficial. Persuasion is usually achieved by promising the people money for nothing or requiring less effort from them to progress. Socialism is a classic case in point.
Although today communism has been comprehensively discredited, socialism and European-style social democracy are still powerful political forces, and are up against conservatism (whether compassionate, mainstream or radical) and libertarianism, as well as the fringe environmentalist and nationalist elements of society. This debate isn't going away any time soon, whatever the relative merits of each philosophy, and so politics will remain as long as we live in democracies.
The death of politics is possible, but it really depends on which way society develops. A libertarian capitalist system will tend to result in a slimmed down political process and fewer politicians and lobbyists, simply because the scope of government activity is reduced. On the other hand, a more left-leaning system will increase the number of politicians, lobbyists and public servants as the scope of governmental activity at local, state and federal levels is increased (by expanding the provision of public health care, welfare, increased petty regulation, and so on).
Whatever the relative merits of the Presidential candidates this time around, this is the basic choice on offer - from the Democrats, increased regulation & interference and taxation to pay for it; from the Republicans, probably no major reductions but equally no serious increases in any of these.
Since there will always be a demand from part of society for "free" health care, welfare payments and an easier working life, and a contrary demand from other parts of society to avoid the social, taxation and regulatory burdens that this would impose, there is for some time going to be a healthy political debate on these choices and the various ways of implementing them.
My point was about welfare, not healthcare. As a matter of fact, Britain spends about 18% of GDP on welfare payments *excluding* healthcare. This is the real economic problem for Britain.
Technology *can* affect the political environment, but I don't think it actually is. The problems you identify are real, but the cause has nothing to do with technology. I doubt that the solution will, either.
To a point, you are IMHO correct.
A closer approximation would be 1950s - 1960s Britain, rather than the Roman Empire.
Americans should look eastward and see what became of Britain, consider why, and make sure it doesn't happen in America. The choice is still there, and the example is plain.
Quasi-socialist policy designed to create a self-perpetuating welfare-junkie underclass which needs the constant attention (and funding and thus political control) of the government is NOT in the best interests of the American people (or anyone else, for that matter).
In any society at any time, some proportion of the people will be in need of some form of public welfare, and it is a mark of a civilized society that a moderate, prudent and appropriate provision is made, but only to the extent of holding out a helping hand to a temporarily stumbling "Joe Six-Pack". Once Joe has got off the ground and is on his own feet again, the hand needs to be withdrawn, and not (as in Britain) kept there with consequent ongoing cost, regulation and control.
Technology is not disconnecting the people from the political process. What is happening in American politics is that:
1. The party machines and lobby groups are growing more sophisticated and are extending their control at the expense of that of the private citizen;
2. Government has over the past decades extended its reach into areas of private and community life that were previously left alone because it is frequently felt that increasingly complex matters require increasingly detailed regulation;
3. The success of the US economy has increased national and average personal wealth significantly, and this has inevitably engendered a sense of guilt and social responsibility towards the less fortunate. This manifests itself in a consensus that public welfare provision should be expanded (by whatever degree) - inevitably, this means more government, more funds, more scope for manipulation, and decreased political diversity as the consensus on political acceptability narrows.
Each of these leads to a more complex government apparatus, which is of course going to attempt to preserve its own livelihood. It also means more jobs & influence for the mayor's/governor's/president's buddies, so the average politician is going to be disinclined to suggest radical reform.
The range of choices open to the voter diminishes, and so fewer voters bother to cast their ballot (or even register to vote)
This process has nothing to do with technology. It happened in Europe in the early part of the 20th century, and is now happening in America. It took Britain 50 years to build a complex welfare system that imposed (and still imposes) a huge drain on the national economy, and it took another 40 years to realise that it had to be reformed and scaled back. This is still going on, and will continue for years to come.
It is of course possible to arrange for frequent county, state and federal plebiscites on a variety of matters, and it is easier to do this using the internet than with formal voting stations. However, the idea of representative democracy is that the elected representatives of the people make the decisions on their behalf, and such widespread popular voting would make this system irrelevant. In any case, would you want to have to vote three times a week every week?
The cause of the problem is not technology. The answer is not technology. The cause is bigger government, and the answer is smaller government. Government at any level should only be doing what (a) only government (and not the people themselves) can do, and (b) to do this only when it is actually necessary (and not just desirable).
Using the energy from nitrogen (or releasing the energy used in compressing and liquifying it beforehand), although clean at the point of immediate use, is wasteful. You need large liquifaction plants and cryogenic storage facilities. Admittedly, the problem is less severe than with hydrogen, but it is the same kind of problem. The short term answer is combined gasoline (or diesel)/electric systems similar to the Saturn automobile. Medium term, it will be battery electric with small diesel or gas booster engines to provide increased range. Longer term, it will be battery electric with fuel cell boosters or alcohol powered engine boosters. There are two basic problems - the efficiency and cost of refining, distributing and storing the fuel & converting it to useful power, and environmental problems. The last is the simplest one - as long as a carbon based fuel is used (gas, diesel, alcohol, coal, heavy oil) & burned at high temperature, there will be problems with NOx & CO/CO2 emissions. These are best dealt with by restricting their use wherever possible to fixed generation plant, which can have complex and highly effective emissions control gear not realistic for a mobile or small plant (e.g. a car or small generator). Where mobile plant is necessary, it needs to be as clean as possible, which is most easily achieved by using it as little as possible. A small engine boosting an electric drive system is therefore a major step on the way. Most of the power generation needs to be done in large, fixed plant where it is much more efficient and clean. The choice of fuel becomes less important as less is used, but gasoline and (especially) diesel, are filthy fuels, esp. when burned in limited air (inside a car engine). Cleaner combustion can be had by burning the fuel in excess air (e.g. to vaporize water to run a steam engine). Generally, alcohol is a cleaner fuel, as well as being infinitely renewable. One might imagine a variety of designs on the market before they are whittled down to one or two basic options. Perhaps there will be a renewal of interest in steam vehicles, and some wacky designer might come up with a hybrid electric & alcohol-burning steam hybrid. The use of liquid hydrogen (for combustion or for conversion in a fuel cell) is not so likely to happen because of cost and safety considerations. My money is on batteries and alcohol.