I never liked Reagan—not as a candidate, not as president, not now.
Because he was "the Teflon president," the press never had the guts to criticize him—so we began to hear about all the bad things he had done only once he had left office.
When he was campaigning for the presidency, his speeches had a blatant appeal to Americans' racism. Also while a candidate, he negotiated with the Iranians—in violation of U.S. law—so that they would not release the American hostages they were holding until the campaign and election were over with. Sure enough, the hostages were released on the day of Reagan's inauguration.
Also on his Inauguration Day in 1980, he immediately halted all government funding for alternative energy research. If, 30 years later, we still don't have much in the way of alternatives to petroleum-based fuels, that's directly and simply due to Reagan.
There was an anecdote that on the eve of a big international conference, his aides provided him with a lot of briefing papers; but instead of reading them and doing his "homework," he spent the evening before the big conference watching movies.
Also, he greatly undermined environmental regulation by the EPA; and regulation of our food supplies, our medications, and so forth by the FDA. We are still suffering from inadequate governmental oversight of public health because of him.
The best thing I can sat about Reagan is that the Religious Right folks who helped elect him were sorely disappointed that he did not deliver for them everything they had hoped or wanted.
Update, August 24, 2011
A recent PBS TV program on energy showed an expert who stated that, as I indeed said here, Ronald Reagan set back US alternative energy programs by 30 years.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
The Ecology of Christmas
Call me Scrooge. Call me anti-Christian. Call me un-American. But I think this needs to be said.
Why have I never heard anyone commenting on the extra energy consumption that is represented by Christmas lights? Granted, tiny little lights, individually, don't use a lot of electricity. But this whole Christmas lights/decoration thing has gotten so out of hand, with people vying to outdo one another, that people are getting electric bills in the thousands of dollars.
This extra demand for electricity not only means more depletion of resources (coal, gas, oil) to generate the power, and the concomitant greenhouse gas emission, but also a seldom-mentioned consequence of our power consumption, the production of mountains of coal ash (from coal-burning power plants) that can be a toxic environmental hazard, according to the EPA.
And then there are Christmas trees. (I except artificial trees from these comments.) How many millions of Christmas trees are grown every year, to be used for a short time and then disposed of (hopefully turned into mulch, at the very least)? How much land is used for growing Christmas trees? Maybe that land could be used for growing food crops to feed a hungry world or even corn for ethanol production. Almost any use of that land would seem to me more sensible than use as Christmas tree farms when that's for such an ephemeral product.
Even if the land used were not good for anything else, it could be returned to wildlife habitat, which continually shrinks as humans spread themselves and their activities over the face of the planet.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Why have I never heard anyone commenting on the extra energy consumption that is represented by Christmas lights? Granted, tiny little lights, individually, don't use a lot of electricity. But this whole Christmas lights/decoration thing has gotten so out of hand, with people vying to outdo one another, that people are getting electric bills in the thousands of dollars.
This extra demand for electricity not only means more depletion of resources (coal, gas, oil) to generate the power, and the concomitant greenhouse gas emission, but also a seldom-mentioned consequence of our power consumption, the production of mountains of coal ash (from coal-burning power plants) that can be a toxic environmental hazard, according to the EPA.
And then there are Christmas trees. (I except artificial trees from these comments.) How many millions of Christmas trees are grown every year, to be used for a short time and then disposed of (hopefully turned into mulch, at the very least)? How much land is used for growing Christmas trees? Maybe that land could be used for growing food crops to feed a hungry world or even corn for ethanol production. Almost any use of that land would seem to me more sensible than use as Christmas tree farms when that's for such an ephemeral product.
Even if the land used were not good for anything else, it could be returned to wildlife habitat, which continually shrinks as humans spread themselves and their activities over the face of the planet.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Driving More Safely and More Economically
Some more observations on how people drive, at least here in the big city and its environs.
There's no doubt that big-city drivers drive very aggressively. This may consist of various unsafe behaviors such as aggressively changing lanes and weaving in and out in an attempt to pass everybody out (this counts as road rage and could get you a ticket). Another such behavior is what is known as "late merging."
I think there are at least two things behind this aggressive behavior behind the wheel. One is a sort of competitiveness. I'm not sure if these guys and gals are trying to prove their driving skill or to show that they and their vehicles can get to some point down the road more quickly than the rest of us—which might be the same thing.
Another is just being in a hurry. I already wrote about how nowadays everybody seems to be in a rush--at least in the city; if one goes to some other areas, as I found for example in driving through Michigan's Upper Peninsula one time, there definitely is a slower pace to things. But in urban areas such as mine, everyone seems to live by the axiom that "time is money."
Besides being in the main unsafe, a lot of these behaviors also waste fuel. Saving gas, on the other hand, not only benefits your pocketbook, it benefits the environment. One way that I try to drive more economically: I try to look ahead and when I see a red light, even a block down the road, I slow down—unlike many drivers who seem to me to be foolishly racing to get to that red light. Remember that your brakes are basically turning your gasoline into heat energy that goes into the atmosphere; in other words, it's wasted energy.
Of course we have to brake sometimes. Maybe often. But intelligent driving can lessen how much fuel you are wasting at your brake rotors. I try to avoid braking from 30 or even 20 mph, so I try to coast to a stop whenever I can.
Do you brake very often? Maybe you're not aware of how much you brake, but someone driving behind you can see how often your brake lights come on—more often than mine do. If you brake an awful lot, chances are that you're following too closely. By keeping a greater distance between myself and the car ahead of me, I'm able to brake much less than some other cars I see on the road.
And another peril of following too closely: There wouldn't--logically there couldn't--be 30-car or even 100-car pileups if drivers gave themselves enough distance to stop in, rather than following too closely for conditions.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
There's no doubt that big-city drivers drive very aggressively. This may consist of various unsafe behaviors such as aggressively changing lanes and weaving in and out in an attempt to pass everybody out (this counts as road rage and could get you a ticket). Another such behavior is what is known as "late merging."
I think there are at least two things behind this aggressive behavior behind the wheel. One is a sort of competitiveness. I'm not sure if these guys and gals are trying to prove their driving skill or to show that they and their vehicles can get to some point down the road more quickly than the rest of us—which might be the same thing.
Another is just being in a hurry. I already wrote about how nowadays everybody seems to be in a rush--at least in the city; if one goes to some other areas, as I found for example in driving through Michigan's Upper Peninsula one time, there definitely is a slower pace to things. But in urban areas such as mine, everyone seems to live by the axiom that "time is money."
Besides being in the main unsafe, a lot of these behaviors also waste fuel. Saving gas, on the other hand, not only benefits your pocketbook, it benefits the environment. One way that I try to drive more economically: I try to look ahead and when I see a red light, even a block down the road, I slow down—unlike many drivers who seem to me to be foolishly racing to get to that red light. Remember that your brakes are basically turning your gasoline into heat energy that goes into the atmosphere; in other words, it's wasted energy.
Of course we have to brake sometimes. Maybe often. But intelligent driving can lessen how much fuel you are wasting at your brake rotors. I try to avoid braking from 30 or even 20 mph, so I try to coast to a stop whenever I can.
Do you brake very often? Maybe you're not aware of how much you brake, but someone driving behind you can see how often your brake lights come on—more often than mine do. If you brake an awful lot, chances are that you're following too closely. By keeping a greater distance between myself and the car ahead of me, I'm able to brake much less than some other cars I see on the road.
And another peril of following too closely: There wouldn't--logically there couldn't--be 30-car or even 100-car pileups if drivers gave themselves enough distance to stop in, rather than following too closely for conditions.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Reagan (and Bush) on Energy and Consumer Protection
News has it that President Obama is installing solar energy-producing panels on the roof of the White House.
This item, and earlier ones, reminded us that President Jimmy Carter had also installed solar panels on the White House roof—and then Ronald Reagan removed them. Why would he do this, when it must have cost taxpayers money to remove them? My guess is, simply to thumb his nose at environmentalists.
Also, as is not very well known, on the day of his inauguration, Reagan froze all funding of alternative energy research by the Department of Energy. I can tell you that a lot of alternative energy research that is being called for today or has recently been started up, was going on in 1981 when Reagan halted it. On the smaller scale, Reagan's move cost many jobs (including, ultimately, mine—so yes, I have a personal axe to grind here) but it also set back the efforts to find new energy sources by 30 years.
Many of the bad things that Reagan did (okay, bad at least from my perspective, or any liberal perspective) were not publicized at the time. Reagan was very popular—remember, he was called "the Teflon President," and the Press was afraid to criticize him because of that popularity.
For example, he gutted federal regulatory agencies such as the EPA and FDA that were intended by Congress to safeguard our food, water, air, and so forth. He appointed as heads of these agencies industry-sympathetic people or even industry insiders who had no intention of allowing these agencies to function effectively.
Similarly, Congress passed laws to beef up (no pun) government inspections of food-processing plants. Had these measures taken effect, they might have prevented some of the recent outbreaks of food-borne illnesses such as Salmonella and E. coli from eggs, peanut butter, and so forth (there have been many in the last few years). But the stiffer inspection schedules were never implemented, because of eight years of foot-dragging by the Bush administration.
Update, August 26, 2011
I recently learned that Rodger Mudd, of CBS TV news, did at the time report on Reagan removing the solar panels from the White House. It was a very brief news item and didn't mention any possible explanation.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
This item, and earlier ones, reminded us that President Jimmy Carter had also installed solar panels on the White House roof—and then Ronald Reagan removed them. Why would he do this, when it must have cost taxpayers money to remove them? My guess is, simply to thumb his nose at environmentalists.
Also, as is not very well known, on the day of his inauguration, Reagan froze all funding of alternative energy research by the Department of Energy. I can tell you that a lot of alternative energy research that is being called for today or has recently been started up, was going on in 1981 when Reagan halted it. On the smaller scale, Reagan's move cost many jobs (including, ultimately, mine—so yes, I have a personal axe to grind here) but it also set back the efforts to find new energy sources by 30 years.
Many of the bad things that Reagan did (okay, bad at least from my perspective, or any liberal perspective) were not publicized at the time. Reagan was very popular—remember, he was called "the Teflon President," and the Press was afraid to criticize him because of that popularity.
For example, he gutted federal regulatory agencies such as the EPA and FDA that were intended by Congress to safeguard our food, water, air, and so forth. He appointed as heads of these agencies industry-sympathetic people or even industry insiders who had no intention of allowing these agencies to function effectively.
Similarly, Congress passed laws to beef up (no pun) government inspections of food-processing plants. Had these measures taken effect, they might have prevented some of the recent outbreaks of food-borne illnesses such as Salmonella and E. coli from eggs, peanut butter, and so forth (there have been many in the last few years). But the stiffer inspection schedules were never implemented, because of eight years of foot-dragging by the Bush administration.
Update, August 26, 2011
I recently learned that Rodger Mudd, of CBS TV news, did at the time report on Reagan removing the solar panels from the White House. It was a very brief news item and didn't mention any possible explanation.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Politics, Energy Policy, and Financial-System Reform
Anyone who pays attention to current news has heard about the environmental disaster in the making, due to an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. An offshore oil-drilling platform caught fire and then sank. This has resulted in loss of lives (I think 11 at latest estimate), plus some 40,000 gallons of oil per day are being spilled into the gulf waters.
Such accidents are a constant risk of offshore oil drilling. Yet President Obama recently issued an order to expand offshore oil drilling off the U.S. coast.
Yes, we need energy. For now, unfortunately, we need oil. But it still is surprising, disappointing, and saddening to Obama's liberal constituency and anyone concerned with the environment that he has done this. It seems to be a philosophy of "more oil at any cost." Well, I say, let people driving 3-ton SUVs pay more for their gas than they are currently. They don't care about the environment, and I'd like to see them bear more of a burden for their actions. (The U.S. still has gasoline for half of what it costs in Europe.)
Lest I seem to be attacking Democrats and a (supposedly) liberal president, let me hasten to lay some blame at the door of Republicans. The energy problem goes back at least 30 years. Or rather, 30 years ago, when things could have been done, they were not. The day of his inauguration, Ronald Reagan halted all U.S. Department of Energy funding for research on alternative energy. (I know this because I was working for a nonprofit engineering research group that did a lot of research into fuel from biomass, ocean thermal energy, fuel cells, and so forth. This institution depended very heavily on DOE contracts and was extremely impacted by Reagan's actions, and had to cut, eventually, two-thirds of their staff.) Other commentators have said that we have lost 30 years out of the alternative-energy program.
Ronald Reagan even stamped out or undid what was viewed as Jimmy Carter's last legacy: a solar water-heating system Carter had installed on the White House roof. I don't know what reason, if any, Reagan gave for this action. It was not publicized at the time, if I recall. I have to think it was just thumbing his nose at Carter, liberal policies, and environmentalism.
Also on the subject of Republicans: Right now they are opposing legislation in the Senate that would reform the financial system. During the years of laissez-faire, some of the reforms of the post-Depression era—such as the Glass-Stiegel Act, which separated banking from investment business--were repealed. That was a cause of the recent economic mess. (I think some of this occurred, in fact, under Clinton. Any reader, please correct me if I am wrong here.)
The Republican approach clearly is, "If the Democrats want it, we're going to oppose it." That's called obstructionism. In fact they are filibustering, which is nothing more nor less than an obstructing tactic.
But there is lots of evidence that the people want these reforms. The Republicans in Congress surely are professional politicians; we will see if they are astute politicians as well. To oppose the will of the people should result in their being voted out of office. That message probably is just now starting to penetrate their osseous skulls.
Note added April 29: The news on the oil spill continues to get worse. Yesterday they said it is much worse than originally estimated. Today they said that 210,000 gallons of oil are leaking into the Gulf every day. This promises to be one of the worst environmental disasters ever.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Such accidents are a constant risk of offshore oil drilling. Yet President Obama recently issued an order to expand offshore oil drilling off the U.S. coast.
Yes, we need energy. For now, unfortunately, we need oil. But it still is surprising, disappointing, and saddening to Obama's liberal constituency and anyone concerned with the environment that he has done this. It seems to be a philosophy of "more oil at any cost." Well, I say, let people driving 3-ton SUVs pay more for their gas than they are currently. They don't care about the environment, and I'd like to see them bear more of a burden for their actions. (The U.S. still has gasoline for half of what it costs in Europe.)
Lest I seem to be attacking Democrats and a (supposedly) liberal president, let me hasten to lay some blame at the door of Republicans. The energy problem goes back at least 30 years. Or rather, 30 years ago, when things could have been done, they were not. The day of his inauguration, Ronald Reagan halted all U.S. Department of Energy funding for research on alternative energy. (I know this because I was working for a nonprofit engineering research group that did a lot of research into fuel from biomass, ocean thermal energy, fuel cells, and so forth. This institution depended very heavily on DOE contracts and was extremely impacted by Reagan's actions, and had to cut, eventually, two-thirds of their staff.) Other commentators have said that we have lost 30 years out of the alternative-energy program.
Ronald Reagan even stamped out or undid what was viewed as Jimmy Carter's last legacy: a solar water-heating system Carter had installed on the White House roof. I don't know what reason, if any, Reagan gave for this action. It was not publicized at the time, if I recall. I have to think it was just thumbing his nose at Carter, liberal policies, and environmentalism.
Also on the subject of Republicans: Right now they are opposing legislation in the Senate that would reform the financial system. During the years of laissez-faire, some of the reforms of the post-Depression era—such as the Glass-Stiegel Act, which separated banking from investment business--were repealed. That was a cause of the recent economic mess. (I think some of this occurred, in fact, under Clinton. Any reader, please correct me if I am wrong here.)
The Republican approach clearly is, "If the Democrats want it, we're going to oppose it." That's called obstructionism. In fact they are filibustering, which is nothing more nor less than an obstructing tactic.
But there is lots of evidence that the people want these reforms. The Republicans in Congress surely are professional politicians; we will see if they are astute politicians as well. To oppose the will of the people should result in their being voted out of office. That message probably is just now starting to penetrate their osseous skulls.
Note added April 29: The news on the oil spill continues to get worse. Yesterday they said it is much worse than originally estimated. Today they said that 210,000 gallons of oil are leaking into the Gulf every day. This promises to be one of the worst environmental disasters ever.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Americans and Energy Use
An interesting statistic that I came across the other day is that Americans make up 4% of the world's population but use 25% of the world's energy.
The most obvious place where that energy goes is our cars: we have more cars and bigger cars, and we drive a lot.
But, here is an interesting exercise: I know this sounds weird and geeky, so yeah, okay, I am: but one time I tried counting up all the electric motors in my house. Give this a try, and go room by room. It's very hard not to overlook any: I came up with around 60 or 70.
First, nearly every appliance in your kitchen has an electric motor. Your blender, mixer, coffee grinder, electric can opener, knife sharpener. There may be one or two in your microwave. Your refrigerator has a motor. Don't overlook the vacuum cleaner, washer, dryer. Your furnace has a blower motor and if you have central A/C, that's at least two or three motors.
In your bathroom—have you got an electric toothbrush, hair dryer, electric shaver, Water-Pik? Exhaust fan? Count even the battery-operated devices.
A CD player or DVD player has an electric motor. If you still have a VHS recorder or an audio cassette recorder, one of those has one or more motors. Any DVR will have a motor. Digital camera? A motor for the zoom action.
In the home office--inside your computer, your hard disk drive and any floppy drive each is a motor. Got a printer, too? Guess what, a motor. Paper shredder?
Include your garage. There's your electric garage door opener, one motor. In your car, you've got any number of motors: probably a number of electric motors under the hood, such as for the cooling fan and maybe fuel pump. And there's the heater motor, the starter motor; each power window. power mirror, or power seat has a motor. And your car has an audio system, which uses at least one motor for the tape and CD players. Then there's the car's air conditioning, at least a couple more.
Where is your count now? Dozens, I'm sure, maybe nudging 100. Now, how many motors does a person in a third-world country have, do you suppose?
Another exercise is to count the light bulbs in your house. Here, too, it may be hard not to overlook a few. Unless you live in a small studio apartment, the number is likely to be in the dozens.
Don't forget your closets, the outside of your house. Inside your microwave, your oven, your refrigerator (my refrigerator has three). The headlight on your vacuum cleaner. (You don't have to count LEDs, those tiny red and green and blue indicator lights that are so ubiquitous these days; those use a negligible amount of electric power.)
Think you're done? Oh, and there's the. . . .
So what was your total?
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
The most obvious place where that energy goes is our cars: we have more cars and bigger cars, and we drive a lot.
But, here is an interesting exercise: I know this sounds weird and geeky, so yeah, okay, I am: but one time I tried counting up all the electric motors in my house. Give this a try, and go room by room. It's very hard not to overlook any: I came up with around 60 or 70.
First, nearly every appliance in your kitchen has an electric motor. Your blender, mixer, coffee grinder, electric can opener, knife sharpener. There may be one or two in your microwave. Your refrigerator has a motor. Don't overlook the vacuum cleaner, washer, dryer. Your furnace has a blower motor and if you have central A/C, that's at least two or three motors.
In your bathroom—have you got an electric toothbrush, hair dryer, electric shaver, Water-Pik? Exhaust fan? Count even the battery-operated devices.
A CD player or DVD player has an electric motor. If you still have a VHS recorder or an audio cassette recorder, one of those has one or more motors. Any DVR will have a motor. Digital camera? A motor for the zoom action.
In the home office--inside your computer, your hard disk drive and any floppy drive each is a motor. Got a printer, too? Guess what, a motor. Paper shredder?
Include your garage. There's your electric garage door opener, one motor. In your car, you've got any number of motors: probably a number of electric motors under the hood, such as for the cooling fan and maybe fuel pump. And there's the heater motor, the starter motor; each power window. power mirror, or power seat has a motor. And your car has an audio system, which uses at least one motor for the tape and CD players. Then there's the car's air conditioning, at least a couple more.
Where is your count now? Dozens, I'm sure, maybe nudging 100. Now, how many motors does a person in a third-world country have, do you suppose?
Another exercise is to count the light bulbs in your house. Here, too, it may be hard not to overlook a few. Unless you live in a small studio apartment, the number is likely to be in the dozens.
Don't forget your closets, the outside of your house. Inside your microwave, your oven, your refrigerator (my refrigerator has three). The headlight on your vacuum cleaner. (You don't have to count LEDs, those tiny red and green and blue indicator lights that are so ubiquitous these days; those use a negligible amount of electric power.)
Think you're done? Oh, and there's the. . . .
So what was your total?
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Be Sure to Buy That Big SUV
Big SUVs have been heavily discounted by dealers. It's supply and demand, no one—at least no one sensible—wants them. So you've got this person who says to himself, "Well, I can buy that TailGrazer (or Exhibitionist or GM Ginormous) for $38,000 instead of $45,000, and gas prices have been much lower—so I think I'll go for it!"
Well, aside from the fact that the people buying and driving those monsters are helping to destroy the planet, they're going to find that they were short-sighted. Out my window I can see a gas station, with its price sign, so I can keeps tabs on the price of gas. A couple days ago the price went up 20¢-- and it was Monday, not Tuesday, when they usually raise their prices. It's up to $2.659 for regular now. I bought gas last week for $2.24, and it's only been a few weeks since it was $2.11.
Now that we're in sight of $3 a gallon again, can $4 be far behind? Woe be to him who thinks for a moment, It won't happen again.
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
Well, aside from the fact that the people buying and driving those monsters are helping to destroy the planet, they're going to find that they were short-sighted. Out my window I can see a gas station, with its price sign, so I can keeps tabs on the price of gas. A couple days ago the price went up 20¢-- and it was Monday, not Tuesday, when they usually raise their prices. It's up to $2.659 for regular now. I bought gas last week for $2.24, and it's only been a few weeks since it was $2.11.
Now that we're in sight of $3 a gallon again, can $4 be far behind? Woe be to him who thinks for a moment, It won't happen again.
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
