In July we reported Prof. Seitz' criticism of the Am. Phys. Soc.'s seriously flawed SDI study, which was trumpeted as a special statement by the APS Council in Physics Today. Now its October issue brings a letter signed by 14 of the 17 authors of the study, de-nouncing the APS Council statement. '~We object," they write, "to being included in the council's statement on matters neither we nor they studied." This is a highly unusual step for nationally known physicists to take against the leadership of their own organization, and if the media were merely sensation-seeking rather than slanted to the left, they would have had a "man-bites-dog" story. But it was of little interest to the Great American Brainwash Machine, which had lavishly plugged the APS report as a refutation of the SDI. However, Science, which could not very well ignore the disgrace, has two kinds of type for headlines, shown below (reduced by the same ratio): one for headlines stretching all across the page for when the APS came out with its deceitful propaganda (I don't archive the Science scribblers' scribblings and have substituted a headline just as good), and the smaller size for revoking it.
[LARGE TYPE:] Safety of DOE Reactors Questioned
[small type:] APS Panel Disowns Council Statement
The July Popular Science has an advertisement under the headline SAVING YOUR FAMILY FROM THE DANGER OF RADIATION, replete with scare stories about nuclear power stations, nuclear fuel transportation and nuclear waste. It points to the "continuous movement of ore from the refinery to the user" and ominously asks whether you live near an interstate highway. But self-protection is easy: for $185, an Ohio outfit called Survivor will sell you a gadget that alerts you when the exposure exceeds 0.25 milliroentgens/hour which is 25 times the average natural background level. For half the price I will sell you a gadget that alerts you to nocturnal floods from the automobile radiators dripping on the interstate highways; it will sound an alarm as soon as the water level rises above your bed.
General Motors is taking out double spreads to boast about its glorious victory in the race of solar-powered cars across 1,950 miles of Australian desert. In 1979 I wrote (Why "soft" technology will not be America's energy salvation, Golem Press, $2) that a solar car does not make sense because for even the 25 HP of a minicar it would need 660 square feet of collecting area. Do I eat my words now? No: I throw them at the GM flaks. The rules of the race allowed a maximum collecting area of 8 sq. meters (taking up most of the "car" and barely allowing room for the driver). With 1.12 kW/sq. meter coming in from the sun, with 746 W= 1 HP, and crediting both the solar panels and GM's engine with a 100% efficiency, that cor-responds to a 12 HP engine
¾press reports actually put the ex-tracted power at 2 HP (and the cost of the collectors on Ford's entry at $700,000/kW, or well over $1 million for the 2 HP). What the ad is celebrating is an overpriced 2 HP toy that by elementary physics cannot possibly undergo significant development.The delusion that dilute solar energy can compete with fossil fuels or nuclear power as an artificial energy source has gained adherents in a most unlikely place. "Throughout the world, the tendency toward safe and ecologically clean power plants is gaining strength. . . Fossil-fired power plants are potentially dangerous, as are nuclear plants. In this respect, solar energy is ideal. It is absolutely harmless, and in addition it can play its trump card over fossil-fired plants
¾the guarantee of delivering mankind from energy hunger. . . " So says Izvestiya of Sept. 23. It gets confusing when you don't know who is cribbing from whom any more; but I do fervently hope the Soviets will abandon nuclear power for solar energy. With Reagan begging on his knees for a disarmament treaty, perhaps he can swing a deal for the Supreme Soviet to appoint Amory Lovins Minister of Softaya Tekhnologiya.Since four-letter words have become de rigeur among the more refined sections of the culturally conscious and socially aware, I think I have rarely seen more obscene words than "was", "once", and "perhaps". Describing the failure of a Soviet policeman to arrest some dissident artists in Leningrad, Newsweek (11/9/87) used them in the following context (my italics): "In the end it was the officer, a uniformed symbol of what was once perhaps the harshest police state in the world, who. . . "
|
|
Vol. 15, No. 4
Newsletter: Access to Energy Newsletter Archive Volume: Issues Issue/No.: Vol. 15, No. 4 Date: December 01, 2004 09:03 AM Title: Why France?
Copyright © 2004 - Access to Energy Newsletter Archive
|