"I believe that it's possible in the next 20 years for vehicles to use half the fuel and produce half the pollution that they do today."People used to believe they could change lead to gold, too. Then came the development of what we call "science".
People used to believe that perpetual motion was a distinct possibility. The laws of physics sort of screwed that up.
Mr. Obama, engineer deluxe, also soberly told us that we could save more oil with properly inflated tires than we could produce by drilling up known resources. Babs Boxer, stupidest woman in the U.S. Senate repeated that larf just days ago.
Reality is different. Heavy trucks today universally use sophisticated computer engine controls to wring every bit of fuel efficiency possible out of a gallon of diesel fuel. They are universally turbo-charged, partly to assure complete burning of fuel to reduce emissions. We are bumping the limits of engineering...or as we realists call it "science".
Obama may BELIEVE any number of ludicrous things are possible. Were he just an ignorant fool, that would be one thing. But having a man MANDATE unicorn engineering is DANGEROUS to a nation that depends on RATIONAL decisions.
Posts
Just a thought. I knew a retired NASA engineer in our church in Florida who was working in the space program when Kennedy made his speech. "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving a goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth." He said all the NASA "rocket scientists" where watching with jaws dropping and the room was silent. With the knowledge and technology they had, not one of them believed it could be done. They had just managed to get a man to the edge of the atmosphere, and barely got him back alive. But they went to work on it anyway, and guess what.
ReplyDeleteBarry, "You're no Jack Kennedy" but what if a goal were set to make the US energy independent by the end of the next decade? It could happen, but ONLY if we lose the green nonsense, utilize coal, natural gas and nuclear and some new techs and incentivize the research. It's like we're dying of thirst sitting next to Lake Superior.
Well, respectfully, the moon mission was really quite doable. It was a matter of simple Newtonian physics. The bio-science, engineering and technology were different...they were a stretch for certain. But that is the difference between science and technology.
ReplyDeleteMaking a truck go down the road at a given speed at a given weight is also a matter of physical limitations. We know it will require a certain amount of power. We know how much power is available from a given weight of diesel fuel, hydrogen, whatever. The trucking industry is HIGHLY motivated to optimize fuel efficiency, as are manufacturers. You may have seen trucks sporting "super-singles", or tires with the same load-bearing capacity of duel tires. They offer...at MOST...a fractional increase in mileage, but are used because over their useful life they save SOME fuel.
For some years I have followed adiabatic engine development. Still waiting. I used to hear that gas turbines were the coming thing in heavy trucking. They aren't.
I am not a "energy independence" fan. I think we should use energy from whatever source it comes most economically. I have no problem using up Mid-Eastern oil and leaving ours in the ground if that is what the market price dictates. The day would come when ours was worth more, and theirs was depleted. All good, IMNHO.
I understand what you are saying, but don't know if we are reaching the limits of engineering. The internal combustion engine was cutting edge technology in the 1890's and has likely reached the limits of its efficiency. I guess I think there could be new methods of torque conversion to make energy spin wheels that haven't been thought of yet.
ReplyDeleteSending a monumental chunk of our economy to the Arabs for oil bothers me. It is fair to say if not for his oil, Sadaam Hussein would have been nothing more than another third world Edi Amin shouting threats from his sand box. Oil money is being used against us.
Oil is a fungible item. Oil is oil. So, regardless of who pays for it, Arabs will have money to use against us...or anything else they want to use it on. It is silly to think that our dollars are what is being used against us, because SOMEBODY's dollars would be used if we were not buying the oil, and somebody was.
ReplyDeleteThe bulk of our imported oil comes from Mexico and Canada.
Internal combustion is maybe not as wonderful as external combustion (i.e., steam), but there are reasons it was selected as THE prime-mover.
It would be wonderful to have a new, whizz-bang technology, but wishing for one, or MANDATING ONE is vacant.