Sunday, December 11, 2005

works sited and bibliography for alternative fuels

Works Cited


Brady, Robert N. and John F. Dagel. Diesel Engine and Fuel System Repair

Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, 2002

National Biodiesel Board. www.Biodiesel.org

Mendelson, Johnathan. “Coal” www.mathjmendle.org/AltFuels/coal.htm

Reuters. “Exxon’s $10B net a U.S. Corporate record” CNN 27 Oct. 2005

Robbins, Tom. Half Asleep in Frog Pajamas

New York: Bantam, 1994

Russel, Peter. The White Hole in Time

New York: Bantam, 1992

Segal, Robin. “All About Alternative Fueled Cars” www.Biodiesel.org

What a cool website. I feel this could be the saving force for many of our problems involving fuel cartels and greed. This technology is being pushed by industries who want to spend less on fuel, and who are organized enough to do so. There some great facts and figures here, plus links to all sorts of other things related.

Mendelson, Johnathan. “Coal” www.mathjmendle.org/AltFuels/coal.htm

Mendelson works with environmentalists from around the globe, and is quite active himself. Many of my references were pointed out from his sites. I use his statements on coal.

Reuters. “Exxon’s $10B net a U.S. Corporate record” CNN 27 Oct. 2005

Some dirt was necessary if I was to accurately throw tomatoes in these guys direction. $10B is a lot of dirt.

Robbins, Tom. Half Asleep in Frog Pajamas

New York: Bantam, 1994

This rather obscure reference is actually quite pertinent: the character giving the quote about the bonfire is a stock exchange genius gone to higher things…like frogs, woof woof! You’d have to read the book to get that. Anyway, Robbins does some fairly lengthy and thorough research for all his great books, this one included, and I feel pretty confident using his stuff to back up my point.

Russel, Peter. The White Hole in Time

New York: Bantam, 1992

This gem of a book is a great read, and, puts into perspective what we’re dealing with as far as trends of the human race go. The spectrum of thought Russel pursues is extraordinarily broad and in depth, too much to cram into a few pages. But technology, which is one of the primary focuses of the book, is intimately linked with fuel. I couldn’t resist tapping some of his work.

Segal, Robin. “All About Alternative Fueled Cars” http:www.thecarbuyersbible.com

Dr. Segal puts out a very informative overview of transportation alternatives in a non-biased way. Segal covers vehicles from the electric to hydrogen, citing pros and cons for all. It is Segal’s shining review of diesel, bio-diesel and diesel-hybrids that I pull from in this text.

The National Hydropower Association. A Clean Source for our Future

Washington, DC 2005 http://www.hydro.org/

Here’s a mildly disturbing site- if these guys are telling the whole truth, then there is some heavy greasing of the cogs on a governmental scale for coal. 8-10 years for a dam that produces electricity? That’s insane, compared to the 18 months for a coal fired, smoke belching plant.

The Nuclear Energy Institute. “Statement to the Congressional Subcommittee on

Energy and Resources” Patrick Moore
I use this article perhaps more than any other for the paper. The credibility of the founder of Greenpeace backing nuclear power is too much to resist. His perspective is one of an all-encompassing solution, not just how to be green, dirty hippies- not that there’s anything wrong with that… While Greenpeace whole heartedly disagrees with his view’s, Mr. Moore puts up a very solid argument in nuclear favor, much stronger than “the don’t do anything, let’s go live in the trees again” argument, which is quite unrealistic.

“The Pursuit of Energy Independence: NPR Talk of the Nation”

David Friedman, Neal Conan, 1 Aug. 2005

This was a short blurb where Neal Conan interviewed David Friedman about energy independence. Friedman makes some good points about fuel economy and technological potential, particularly when it comes to why the U.S. companies aren’t making their automotives more efficient. He ties that to the declining state of the Big Three’s stocks and the rise of the foreign market. The part I pull from is the statement of the domestic manufacturers mentality: greed.

US Department of Energy “Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy”


Here’s a huge site on all things energy from a federal point of view. While I didn’t get any direct or even indirect quotes here, this did help shape things, so it deserves mention.

final draft: Alternate Fuels

David Eric Renner
English 151
Section 13
Alternative Fuels

The Industrial Revolution has created within our civilization an appetite; a momentum of consumption that not only encompasses the whole menu, but the staff, the restaurant and all of us, as well. The irony here is that the Industrial Revolution was meant to set us free by having machines do the work for us. Now, with the impersonalized and computerized climate we see today, it seems we are working for the machines; shoveling coal into a doomed locomotive that’s running full steam toward the edge of the world, devouring virgin fields and pristine lakes all along the way. It is here I imagine some waxed mustachioed figure robustly snapping his suspenders and touting “progress, progress, progress!” in a proud, nineteenth century fashion. As modern Westerners, we consume about three hundred and fifty times the energy, per person, as did he. Consider that our population is ten times the size it was two hundred years ago, we might as well run an extension chord to the sun to meet our energy needs. “To put it another way, in one year we now consume more than our society did in the whole period from the rise of ancient Greece to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.” (Russell) That’s a lot of Joules of demand, and currently the best source for that much power is fossil fuel, or is it? Oil and coal have a tendency to be at the roots of great power struggles, with the additional costs of lives and pain not seen at the pumps. Plenty of alternative options have been introduced, but many fail to meet the demand. There are, however, two alternatives, one for each side of the energy industry, that make the grade: biodiesel for transportation (Segal) and nuclear power for electricity. These are current technologies that need minimal adjusting of infrastructure, pollute very little and are much more affordable than current standard practices. If we are to gain energy independence in our lifetimes, and possibly end energy related wars, biodiesel and nuclear power are our best options. (Moore)
Fossil fuels are the most available source in quantities needed to meet actual demand, and are in no danger of running out at any time soon. If only it were that simple this would be an open and shut case. We could trust our fuel suppliers to bring us quality fuel from around the world at reasonable prices and improve everyone’s lives along the way. However, such is not the case. We are starting to see trends of a hydraulic empire forming out of supply and demand for this most essential oil. A hydraulic empire is one that controls its subjects by controlling the water supply they need to grow crops, and thus, to survive. If the water is restricted to almost enough, the people are at the total command of the controllers, and will pay whatever is demanded to get more so they can survive. The same trend is seen with big oil. When the prices go up, we complain about it, pay through the nose, and get on with our lives with tails tucked and heads lowered. Couple this with the fast paced modern world, and we have to pay, lest we miss out on being a part of it. We need power to make our lives work, and burning fossil fuels is currently the most popular way of getting that power.
It seems as though all the Anti-Trust laws against monopolies have been ignored and gleefully sidestepped as the various oil companies all link elbows and skip down the coal-bricked road toward a huge smoking tower sporting a massive dollar sign painted in blood. Take Exxon, for example: These bloated, financial giants reported record profits of nine point nine billion dollars last quarter. When asked why they didn’t increase refining capacity, their spokesman Henry Hubble, gave this cryptic reply: "Frankly, if you're trying to encourage supply growth, it seems odd to put in place disincentives." (Reuters) Who’s supply are we talking about? If these guys are getting such ridiculous profits, and we are paying such high prices for oil due to “shortages,” or whatever the current crisis is, effectively, big oil has tyrannical capabilities similar to the hydraulic emperors of the past. One can be sure that out of simple self-preservation for the status quo, a future with an oil-based power struggle along these lines is guaranteed, and it won’t be pretty.
To be thorough, I must describe what brought about this need for fuel: the automotive industry. This industry has been around for a good hundred years, and in one form or another can be expected to be around indefinitely, as people and goods will always need transportation. One thing I find interesting is that only in the nineties did the gasoline side of the auto industry start making serious changes involving fuel efficiency and emissions control. These were entirely due to EPA standards, and even then the goal was to make autos run as clean and efficiently as their commercial diesel counterparts. (Dagel and Brady) This says two very important things: Primarily, the commercial side of the automotive industry, which is mostly diesel operated, builds their machines for the commercial consumers, who demand highly efficient machinery in order to operate dependably and make a profit. Secondly, the gasoline-run “lay person” side of the industry, builds machinery in the interests of the manufacturer, as indicated by poor fuel economy and mediocre mechanical soundness; these traits directly impact long term costs for the consumers, and contribute to secondary profits for the manufacturers in terms of repairs and selling new cars to replace “disposable” ones.
We can now witness a crack in the “bigger is better” plan with the rise of foreign vehicle dominance over the Big Three. The auto industry helped cultivate the fuel demand, but now soaring prices of that same fuel have cultivated a demand for fuel efficiency, which has been largely neglected and grudgingly conformed to with CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) Standards. CAFE Standards basically state that the overall fuel economy of a manufacturers vehicles have to meet certain standards. What happens is that a bunch of SUV’s come chugging out, and to offset fifteen and change miles-per-gallon, things like the Neon are built to meet an average fuel economy. It is not as if the technology for higher fuel efficiency isn’t available or is costly to install, as demonstrated by the rising foreign car market, it’s that our American companies don’t care. “[T]hey’re concerned about their profits two days, two weeks, maybe even two months from now. They’re not investing in technologies, they’re not investing in these opportunities that are going to ensure they’re profitable ten years from now.” (Friedman) It is these very technologies that have characterized the commercial industry, such as computer controlled fuel injection and variable timing, long before they were used in the public side of the business.
Let us look to the future, as I would like to introduce biodiesel here. The diesel industry has over a hundred years of research and development in the interest of efficient machinery. The actual engine itself is a very simple design, utilizing non-throttled, compressed air and expanding, injected fuel to operate. “The net result of the unthrottled air in the diesel engine is that at idle operation and light loads, the air fuel ratio in the cylinder is very lean (90:1 to 120:1). This excess air supply lowers the average specific heat of the cylinder gases, which in turn increases the indicated work obtained from a given amount of fuel.” (Dagel and Brady) Enter biodiesel, a fuel grown from plants on American soil and refined by ethenol, derived from more American plants. As far as power output goes, there is no notable difference, and it can be mixed with existing diesel at any mixture and used in the same engines. The two areas where biodiesel differs from traditional petroleum based diesel are: pollution and source. Biodiesel pollutes on average eighty percent less than petro-diesel, with the remaining twenty percent of carbon dioxide being reabsorbed by the plants used to grow it in the first place. (National Biodiesel Board) Biodiesel is also produced domesticly, eliminating our reliance on a greedy fuel cartel by providing an alternative that is a worth while competition.
Big Oil makes its presence known throughout the motive energy market, spilling over onto one fifth of the electricity grid. Here is where Big Coal picks up the reins, though on a greatly diminished scale, as coal supplies only fifty-eight percent of American electricity and therefore has some actual competition from alternative sources such as hydroelectric and nuclear power. At our current rate of consumption we’ll have burned up all the coal in the United States within two hundred years, though most likely we’ll stop using ours long before hand and start importing from foreign sources, putting coal in the same position as oil. (Mendelson) We’ve already experienced some rather uncomfortable price spikes in heating and electricity, and because these commodities are necessary, we can look forward to more with very little restraint. See again how the hydraulic empire rears its ugly head through any excuse to do so. As with Big Oil, to turn our backs or only offer temporary solutions such as energy conservation, is irresponsible and morally wrong. To consciously leave the world in such a state for our descendants is just as much a crime against humanity as if we were to leave the kid in the car with the windows up in the summer. Sure we didn’t mean to, but neglect still has the same end result and we’d be just as guilty in retrospect.
Alternatives to coal and gas are making progress in their development, but either face deficiencies in their availability, or miles of red tape. By far the cleanest alternatives are wind and solar; sufficient wind generation is not available nation wide and “Solar panels will not be cost effective for mass application until their cost is reduced by [five to ten] times.” (Moore) Hydroelectric has strong potential. It is clean and cheap, and used responsibly it won’t clog up waterways that are vital for much of the surrounding ecosystems. If its use were extended to current non-hydroelectric dams, another seventeen thousand megawatts of power would be available, effectively eliminating eighteen million tons of carbon wastes. Hydropower’s biggest obstacle is legislation, for example “A typical hydropower project takes 8 to 10 years to find its way through the licensing process. By comparison, a natural gas fired plant, which emits carbon dioxide (CO2) gases, can be sited and licensed in as little as 18 months.” (National Hydropower Association.) Nuclear Plants currently have an almost endless litigation process, mostly due to opposition from uninformed activists and the public love for fanaticism.
So as to dispel any lingering silliness, I must run though the common list and brush it away with a few fell swoops of keyboard. First, terrorists will use the spent fuel rods to make nuclear bombs. Secondly, storage of these same rods is unsafe, causing three eyed fish and abominations such as Godzilla, and finally, nobody wants a Chernobyl or Three Mile Island in their backyard. First, terrorists have been killing each other and everyone else quite effectively with machetes, rifles and car bombs for quite some time, and no one is about to ban those materials. (Moore) I highly doubt any terrorist or mercenary has the constitution and knowledge to hijack a power plant and remove the core without killing themselves halfway through the process. Even so, there may be some validity to that thought, though it’s the governments you should to be worried about since they have the ability to actually make the weapons. Of the five hundred or so reactors in operation worldwide; current security measures must be doing the trick, being as we are still alive. Second, we have more than adequate technology to store the spent fuel indefinitely. If it really bothers you that much, give the rods the old Timothy Leary send off and launch them straight into the sun, it’s big and hot and can take anything. Finally, no one wants any power plant in their back yard, that much electricity is not good for people, regardless of its source. Chernobyl was an example of how not to run a power plant, and is the only case of such extreme disaster. Three Mile Island stands as an ideal example of a worst-case scenario successfully mitigated by safety systems. Considering the nuclear industry has had twenty seven years to make improvements from nineteen seventies technology and the advancement of computer aided safety systems, a future accident, even on the minimal scale of Three Mile Island, is virtually impossible.
Nuclear power produces electricity in the same exact manner as any burnable fuel: heat is produced and water is turned to pressurized steam, which flows through turbines to make electricity. The main difference is how much of the fuel is converted to energy. In standard coal plants, about one third of the fuel is converted to energy from one hundred percent of the available fuel. (U. S. Department of Energy) Translated to automotive terms: this would mean about the same fuel mileage currently seen on the road. A nuclear submarine, however, has enough fuel in its reactor at the time of construction to operate continuously for thirty years. (Uranium Information Centre) It produces enough power to be able to support Battle Creek, though not for as long because of the much higher power load. Incidentally, that reactor is incredibly small, only about twenty feet cubed. While our current technology is able to tap only five percent of the core fuel, we utilize quite a bit of that five percent. Imagine a future where we could use more, where we could think of refueling the world’s energy needs on a scale of a hundred years at a time! Such a future is much more stable and peaceful than any oil or coal based futures.
We are living in times when capitalism isn’t making long-term sense anymore. To turn a profit at the expense of the future isn’t just unintelligent, it is purely evil. Picture a plague of locusts with sharp neckties, firm handshakes and confident smiles, selling wolf tickets and paper tigers. The end results are still the same; fat locusts, miles of stretching wasteland, and nothing to show for it. As Tom Robbins so elegantly puts it “if you keep feeding and feeding and feeding a bonfire, sooner or later you burn up all the fuel and the fire goes cold; or else the fire gets too huge to manage and eventually engulfs the countryside and chars its inhabitants.” To continue to use fossil fuels with no alternative plan is to willingly render ourselves powerless against those who control the valve to our high-octane, mega-watt lifestyles. We have at our fingertips the means to gain energy independence through bio-diesel and nuclear power. These same means could be spread around the world at a fraction of the costs we spend fighting and arming the world: actually doing something for world peace other than paying lip service to it. “This is why we continue to spend more than a trillion dollars a year on weapons of destruction; rather than ensuring our collective survival. Someone somewhere fears that change is not in his or her self interest.” (Russel) Of course these actions would greatly upset the balance of power, potentially sparking off yet more conflict and turmoil, the implications of which are well beyond the limited scope of this essay. Conflict, for whatever reason, is more or less inevitable, whether it will be to ride out this smoking train to the edge or to try and catch a new ride, there will be strife. Any action taken should be done with careful deliberation with respect to the well-being of all people everywhere, not just a quick buck for a few elite.

getting it together

David Eric Renner
English 151
Section 13
Alternative Fuels

The Industrial Revolution has created within our civilization an appetite, a momentum of consumption that not only encompasses the whole menu, but the staff, the restaurant and all of us, as well. The irony here is that the Industrial Revolution was meant to set us free by having machines do the work for us. Now, with the impersonalized and computerized climate we see today, it seems we are working for them, shoveling coal into a doomed locomotive that’s running full steam toward the edge of the world, devouring virgin fields and pristine lakes all along the way. It is here I imagine some waxed mustached figure robustly snapping his suspenders and touting “progress, progress, progress!” in a proud, nineteenth century fashion. As modern Westerners, we consume about three hundred and fifty times the energy, per person, as did he. Consider that our population is ten times the size it was two hundred years ago, we might as well run an extension chord to the sun to meet our energy needs. “To put it another way, in one year we now consume more than our society did in the whole period from the rise of ancient Greece to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.” (Russell) That’s a lot of Joules in demand, and currently the best source for that much power is fossil fuel, or is it? Oil has a tendency to be the source of great power struggles, with the additional costs of lives and pain not seen at the pumps, and coal is just plain dirty. Plenty of alternative options have been introduced, but many fail to meet the demand. There are, however, two alternatives, one for each side of the energy industry, that make the grade: bio-diesel for transportation (Segal) and nuclear power for electricity. These are current technologies that need minimal adjusting of infrastructure, pollute very little and are much more affordable than current standard practices. If we are to gain energy independence in our lifetimes, end energy related wars, and possibly save the world, bio-diesel and nuclear power are our best options. (Moore)
Fossil fuels are the most available source in quantities needed to meet actual demand, and are in no danger of running out at any time within the next few hundred years[S1] . If only it were that simple this would be an open and shut case. We could trust our fuel suppliers to bring us quality fuel from around the world at reasonable prices and improve everyone’s lives along the way. However, such is not the case. We are starting to see trends of a hydraulic empire forming out of supply and demand for our essential oil. A hydraulic empire is an empire that controls its subjects by controlling the water supply they need to grow crops, and thus, survive. We need energy to make our lives work, and the most popular form of that energy is derived by burning fossil fuels. Alternatives, like hydrogen drives, are rarely available to the main stream, and even less affordable. It seems as though all the Anti-Trust laws against monopolies have been ignored and gleefully sidestepped as the various oil companies all link elbows and skip down the coal-bricked road toward a huge smoking tower sporting a massive dollar sign painted in blood. Take Exxon, for example: These bloated, financial giants reported record profits of nine point nine billion dollars last quarter. When asked why they didn’t increase refining capacity, their spokesman Henry Hubble, gave this cryptic reply: "Frankly, if you're trying to encourage supply growth, it seems odd to put in place disincentives." (CNN News) Who’s supply are we talking about? If these guys are getting such ridiculous profits, and we are paying such high prices for oil due to “shortages” or whatever the current crisis is, effectively, big oil has tyrannical capabilities similar to the hydraulic emperors of the past. One can be sure that out of simple self-preservation for the status quo, a future with oil-based warfare is guaranteed.
To be thorough, I must describe what brought about this need for fuel: the automotive industry, particularly the civilian aspect. This industry has been around for a good hundred years, and in one form or another can be expected to be around indefinitely, as people will always need transportation. One thing I find interesting is that only in the nineties did the gasoline side of the civilian auto industry start making serious changes involving fuel efficiency and emissions control. These were entirely due to EPA standards, and even then it was to make autos run as clean and efficiently as their commercial diesel counterparts. (Dagel and Brady) This says two very important things; that commercial industrial profits depend on the efficiency and reliability of their machines, while the civilian automotive industrial profits depend on the durability and reliability of their customers. We can now witness a crack in the “bigger is better” plan with the rise of foreign vehicle dominance over the big Three. The auto industry helped cultivate the fuel demand, but now soaring prices of that same fuel have cultivated a demand for fuel efficiency, which has been largely neglected and grudgingly conformed to with CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) Standards[S2] . CAFE Standards basically state that the average fuel economy of a manufacturers vehicles have to meet certain standards. What happens is that a bunch of SUV’s come chugging out, and to offset fifteen and change miles-per-gallon, things like the Geo Metro are built to meet an average fuel economy. It is not as if the technology for higher fuel efficiency isn’t available or is costly to install, as demonstrated by the rising foreign car market, it’s that our American companies don’t care. “[T]hey’re concerned about their profits two days, two weeks, maybe even two months from now. They’re not investing in technologies, they’re not investing in these opportunities that are going to ensure they’re profitable ten years from now.” (Friedman) It is these very technologies that have characterized the commercial industry, long before they were used in the civilian side of the business. I would like to introduce the idea of bio-diesel here. There is over a hundred years of research and development for efficient diesel machinery, built in the interest of the consumer, not the manufacturer. It takes relatively little to convert to a bio-diesel infrastructure with some interesting perks: bio-diesel can be grown by American farmers, processed in American plants, and used at a fraction of the cost and pollution of standard diesel. This produces jobs and eliminates some dependency on foreign oil, not so much an altruistic idealism, but a necessary step in self-sufficiency away from crackpot oligarchies that guarantee strife-for-oil for years to come.
Oil isn’t our only problem, there’s coal, too. Coal itself is great stuff; it’s relatively cheap to refine and burn and is fairly abundant. However at our current rates of consumption, America will run out of coal in about two hundred years. Currently fifty eight percent of our power plants still use coal to operate boilers, yet they are almost wholly responsible for the combined pollution of the entire power industry. That adds up to roughly a third of America’s greenhouse gases, with the exception of sulfur dioxide, the coal plants pump out two thirds of that lovely substance. Over the last one hundred years, planet wide carbon dioxide levels have increased by one third. (Mendelson) This leaves us in the same position as oil again: import, import, import, and at our current rate of making diplomatic friends with the rest of the world, this could put us in a real nasty bind. Fortunately we’ll all be dead so it’s not our concern, right? Perhaps, but afterlife or not, to consciously leave the world in such a state for our descendants is just as much a crime against humanity as if we were to leave the dog in the car with the windows rolled up in summer. Sure we didn’t mean to, but neglect still has the same result, and we’d be just as guilty in retrospect.
Coal covers about fifty eight percent of the power industry and natural gas rounds that up to seventy percent, leaving thirty percent left for alternatives like wind, hydropower, solar and nuclear. Wind and solar are by far the cleanest alternatives, yet generate on a relatively small scale. Wind is pretty much everywhere, but collecting it and turning it into energy faces much the same problems of technical development as does solar. “Solar panels will not be cost effective for mass application until their cost is reduced by [five to ten] times.” (Moore) There’s geothermal, unfortunately it is limited to locations of volcanic activity. Hydroelectric has strong potential. It is clean and cheap, and used responsibly it won’t clog up waterways that are vital for much of the surrounding ecosystems. If its use were extended to current non-hydroelectric dams, another seventeen thousand megawatts of power would be available, effectively eliminating eighteen million tons of carbon wastes. Hydropower’s biggest obstacle currently is red tape. “A typical hydropower project takes 8 to 10 years to find its way through the licensing process. By comparison, a natural gas fired plant, which emits carbon dioxide (CO2) gases, can be sited and licensed in as little as 18 months.” (National Hydropower Association.)
Which leaves us with nuclear power, perhaps the best alternative for versatility and sheer power output, with some rather nice peripheral benefits. First I must dispel some common misconceptions about nuclear power. Terrorists will use the spent fuel rods to make nuclear bombs. Storage of these same rods is unsafe, causing three eyed fish and abominations such as Godzilla, and nobody wants a Chernobyl or Three Mile Island in their backyard. First, terrorists have been killing each other and everyone else quite effectively with machetes, rifles and car bombs, and no one is about to ban those things. Even so, there is some validity to that thought. I highly doubt any terrorist or mercenary has the constitution and knowledge to hijack a power plant and remove the core without killing themselves halfway through the process, it’s the governments you should to be worried about. Of the five hundred or so reactors in operation worldwide; current security measures must be doing the trick, being as we are still alive. Second, we have more than adequate technology to store the spent fuel indefinitely. If it really bothers you that much, give the rods the old Timothy Leary send off and launch them straight into the sun, it’s big and hot and can take anything. Finally, no one wants any power plant in their back yard, that much electricity is not good for people, regardless it’s source. Chernobyl was an example of how not to run a power plant, and is the only case of such extreme disaster. Three Mile Island stands as an ideal example of a worst-case scenario successfully mitigated by its own automated safety systems. On the plus side, nuclear power produces a negligible amount of waste. Even the spent fuel rods have about ninety five percent of their fuel left in them, and while we don’t have technology to use them now, there is always the future and the sun, if nothing pans out. If we are ever to get to a hydrogen-propelled economy, nuclear power would be the ideal source for the heat and electricity needed to produce hydrogen without the carbon dioxide byproduct of using coal. For ocean side plants, desalination of seawater is possible on a massive and cost effective scale, providing water for people and crops in areas that desperately need water. (Moore)
We are living in times when capitalism isn’t making long-term sense anymore. To turn a profit at the expense of the future isn’t just unintelligent, it is purely evil. Imagine a plague of locusts with sharp neckties, firm handshakes and confident smiles, selling wolf tickets and paper tigers. The end results are still the same; fat locusts and miles of stretching wasteland. As Tom Robbins so elegantly puts it “any Bozo on the riverbank could have told us that if you keep feeding and feeding and feeding a bonfire, sooner or later you burn up all the fuel and the fire goes cold; or else the fire gets too huge to manage and eventually engulfs the countryside and chars its inhabitants.” To continue to use fossil fuels with no alternative plan is to willingly render ourselves powerless against those who control the valve to our high octane lifestyles. We have at our fingertips the means to gain energy independence through bio-diesel and nuclear power. These same means could be spread around the world at a fraction of the costs we spend fighting and arming the world, actually doing something for world peace other than lip service. “This is why we continue to spend more than a trillion dollars a year on weapons of destruction; rather than ensuring our collective survival. Someone somewhere fears that change is not in his or her self interest.” (Russel) Of course these actions would greatly upset the balance of power, potentially sparking off yet more conflict and turmoil, the implications of which are well beyond the limited scope of this essay. Conflict, for whatever reason, is more or less inevitable, whether it be to ride out this smoking train to the edge or to try and catch a new ride, there will be strife. The time is now, and while it has always been now and will continue to be now every time you think of it, and any and all action taken should be done with careful deliberation with respect to the well being of everybody, not just a quick buck and a mess left for somebody else to clean up.




[S1]Find ref

[S2]find ref, check epa

next spin on a complex issue, a readjustment of perspective

Drop a pebble into a still pond and watch the ripples bloom, the first wave being the oldest, a fading ring preserving the information of its creation. If we were to stand back far enough out into space, and listen with the right ears, there would be a low whisper of trees and scraping of stones. Moving toward Earth, and hence, forward in time, we would get a slow build up of intensity, so slow as to be almost imperceptible, like a humming of a mosquito you aren’t quite sure is getting closer or not. Then, as if waking from an eiderdown-soft dream into a frenzied construction zone, the volume surges up and up, till it is a deafening roar that manages to crash into the radio and ultraviolet bands in a sea of high-speed nostalgia and ever quickening bursts of information! It is as if the whole world had tumbled out of bed with a bad craving for a hot cup of coffee, a cigarette, and some skull-crushingly loud rock-and-roll. Indeed, the Industrial Revolution had happened, and at near-light speeds, too! We are now fortunate enough to have front row seats of the present: a culmination of events leading to some wonderful tensions and intriguing uncertainties about the future. I know I wouldn’t miss it for the world. Pass the popcorn!
The Industrial Revolution has created within our civilization an appetite, a momentum of consumption that not only encompasses the whole menu, but the staff, the restaurant and all of us, as well. The irony here is that the Industrial Revolution was meant to set us free by having machines do the work for us. Now, with the impersonalized and computerized climate we see today, it seems we are working for them, shoveling coal into a doomed locomotive that’s running full steam toward the edge of the world, devouring virgin fields and pristine lakes all along the way. It is here I imagine some waxed mustached figure robustly snapping his suspenders and touting “progress, progress, progress!” in a proud, nineteenth century fashion. As modern Westerners, we consume about three hundred and fifty times the energy, per person, as did he. Consider that our population is ten times the size it was two hundred years ago, we might as well run an extension chord to the sun to meet our energy needs. “To put it another way, in one year we now consume more than our society did in the whole period from the rise of ancient Greece to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.” (Peter Russell)
Using fossil fuels has led to some huge problems such as pollution and war. The coal burning section of the power industry, for example, contributes ninety three percent nitrous oxides, ninety six percent sulfur dioxide, eighty eight percent carbon dioxide, and ninety nine percent of the mercury emissions attributed to that industry. The entire power industry is credited with about one third of these wastes, nationwide. That leaves the transportation sector as the major contributor America’s dirt. But over the last hundred years these fuels have become a necessary tool to making our busy lives work, so to say “hey, this stuff is bad for us” when our very well being depends on it, is an open invite for criticism from all sides. Unsavory as it may be, we must move on to something else or face the dire consequences of a future where everywhere looks like Los Angeles, and I don’t mean the pretty parts. Contrary to this grim vision are the fuel companies[S1] , their pockets laden with cash and minds full of greed. Satan should be taking notes. These are the guys who would serial rape a convent, burn down an orphanage and go club some baby seals before lunch.
Yada yada…stuff, ok the point: we need energy independence from toads, and boidiesel and nuclear power are the best ways to make this happen.
S. are fueled by coal, they contribute 93% of NOX, 96% of S02, 88% of Co2 , and
99% of the mercury emitted by the entire power industry.

advancement of topic for alternative fuels

We live in a time of impending doom. Actually we’ve always had impending doom, just now we’re aware of it. Let’s lay it out: fossil fuels will not last forever. Using them has led to some huge problems such as global warming and war. But these fuels have become a necessary tool to making our busy lives work, so to say “hey this stuff is bad for us” when our very well being depends on it is an open invite for criticism from all sides. The truth is, we must break the addiction or suffer greater wars and have a dirtier planet- whether it kills us or not. This issue can be divided into two classes: transportation and industrial. So far the best, practical solutions are nuclear power and boidiesel. The benefits from utilizing these sources are: energy independence, clean, safe energy, and affordability. These are practical because they are currently available and have fifty and a hundred years, respectively, of engineering experience and improvements on their technologies.
Before we get into all that, some history is required to better understand where we are and why. The industrial revolution has created within our civilization an appetite, a momentum of consumption that encompasses the whole menu and threatens to eat the menu, and the restaurant as well, if we don’t do something soon. The irony here is that the industrial revolution was meant to set us free by having machines do the work for us, and now with the impersonalized and computerized climate we see today, it seems we are working for them, shoveling coal into a doomed locomotive that’s running full steam toward the edge of the world! Wait, we’re just getting started. Out of the need for more was created the diesel engine, replacing the ungainly and wasteful steam engine. Parallel to it’s invention was born that mighty dreadnaught; the automobile.
1 one hundred years of darkness was to follow
2 soon multiple competitors were to wave their penises in the world’s first hundred year gasoline-based erection war
3
The first patented automobile was the three wheeled Benz Motorwagen, sporting a sleek one horsepower engine. Within the year of 1886 a more powerful car built by Gotlieb Daimler was introduced, and the race was on! (Tim Guiles) Hear the modern world-tummy rumble as the smoke of that fossil-fueled barbeque being fired up wraps its rich, carbon dioxide aroma around the planet! As Tom Robbins so elegantly puts it “any Bozo on the riverbank could have told us that if you keep feeding and feeding and feeding a bonfire, sooner or later you burn up all the fuel and the fire goes cold; or else the fire gets too huge to manage and eventually engulfs the countryside and chars its inhabitants.” Since the industrial revolution we have been consuming more and more as a society and individuals, meaning bigger power plants and more of them. Power generation has come a long ways, but for the most part it is still on those tracks fueling our doomed train, smoking away like there’s no tomorrow. Some day it just may be right. The average westerner today consumes three hundred fifty times the energy of a person two hundred years ago. Our population is immensely larger, too, about ten times larger. “To put it another way, in one year we now consume more than our society did in the whole period from the rise of ancient Greece to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.” (Peter Russell)

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Research stuffs take two

Eric Renner
Eng 151 T/TH 12:05
Research Exercise #1 - Exploratory Research/ Take Two
Revised Topic Choices: Alternative Energies and Capitalism
Title of First Encyclopedia Entry “Rudolf Diesel”
Rudolf Diesel
Born: 1857Birthplace: Paris, France
Internal combustion engine—Diesel is best known for his invention of the pressure-ignited heat engine that bears his name. The Diesel engine was able to supplant the large, expensive, and fuel-wasting steam engine. (1976)
Died: 1913 (info please encyclopedia)
Summary with Paraphrase
A
Title of Second Encyclopedia Entry “Diesel Engine”
diesel engine
diesel engine, type of internal-combustion engine invented by the German engineer Rudolf Diesel and patented by him in 1892. Although his engine was designed to use coal dust as fuel, the diesel engine now burns low-cost fuel oil.
The diesel engine does not require a large water supply or a long warming-up period and is highly efficient in converting heat energy into work. Diesels are widely used in both stationary and mobile installations where the power required is between that furnished by the gasoline engine and that of the steam turbine and where the relatively high initial cost can be written off over a long period. For example, diesels having capacities of 100 to 5,000 hp are employed on industrial and municipal electric generators and on continuously operating pumps (e.g., on oil pipelines). Moreover, they occupy relatively little space compared with steam units, since no boiler is needed—a factor of importance aboard ships. (info please encyclopedia)
Title of Third Source “The Pursuit of Energy Independence” NPR’s Talk of the Nation-Monday, August 1, 2005
Neal Conan with guest
David Friedman, research director of the Clean Vehicles Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists
David Friedman says
“your choice is 16,17, 18 miles per gallon, that’s not a real choice… but the potential is out there, even without hybrid technology, with simple conventional technology, to have an SUV that get 30, 35 miles to a gallon, that would be real choice in the market place and that way it wouldn’t be about giving up something, it would be about getting the same size the same performance you get today, but with dramatically higher fuel economies so you can save thousands of dollars on gasoline, and, reduce our imports.”
“If it’s that easy, why isn’t it there?” asks Neal Conan
“That’s the classic question” replies David Friedman “and the reason in many ways is because it’s a question of industry being relatively short sighted. The, especially the auto industry, they’re concerned about their profits two days, two weeks, maybe even two months from now. They’re not investing in technologies, they’re not investing in these opportunities that are going to ensure they’re profitable ten years from now. That’s one of the ways that some of the foreign auto makers are actually standing out. They are investing in these technologies, they are planning for the future.”
Title of Fourth Source “Automobile Service” by Tim Gilles (Textbook for Arizona Automotive Institute)
Then and Now:
The Automobile Industry (ch. 1)
On January 29, 1886, Karl Benz of Mannheim, Germany, patented the worlds first automobile, the three wheeled Benz Motorwagen. Later that same year, Gotlieb Daimler of Cannstadt, Germany, built a four wheeled car. Its 1.5 hp engine had 50% more power than the Benz; the horsepower race had begun. In 1900, Benz’s company became the biggest company in the world, building 603 cars.
Long before Benz’s patent, there were ingenious automotive inventors and tinkerers in the United States. But the 1896 Duryea of Massachusetts was the first car to be produced in the United States, followed shortly by the Haynes and Winton. in 1900, Ransom E. Olds of Detroit become the first to mass-produce automobiles in America, the curved-dash “merry Oldsmobile” of the song “Come Away with Me, Lucille.”
Henry Ford was the first to produce the automobile in mass quantities. His grand idea was to build a car that everyone could afford. In 1903, the current Ford Motor Company was founded. The first Model T was sold in 1908. In its 19-year run, 15 million copies of that rugged, simple automobile were produced. This record was not surpassed until the Volkswagen Beetle did so in the early 1970’s.
Another early automotive giant was General Motors, which in 1908 bought Buick, Oldsmobile, Cadillac, and Oakland (which would become Pontiac). Within 2 years, thirty firms had been brought under the GM umbrella, including eleven auto makers.
Walter P. Chrysler merged Willys and Maxwell-Chalmers in 1920. The first car to bear the Chrysler name went on sale in 1924 and was a huge success.
A current trend among foreign car makers is to build assembly plants in the United States. This idea is far from new. In 1888, Steinway and Sons, the New York piano maker, obtained the rights to sell all Daimler patents in the United States. It produced engines and cars in this country between 1905 and 1907.
Today, between one in nine working Americans build, sell, or fix and maintain motor vehicles. Automobile dealerships account for 29% of the retail business conducted in the United States. Automotive-related business represents about a third of a trillion dollars worth of our nation’s economy in an average year. It is estimated that $150 billion of that total is spent on parts, repairs, and maintenance.
Title of Fifth Source “Diesel Engine and Fuel System Repair” by John F. Dagel and Robert N. Brady
Gasoline versus Diesel Engines (p.44)
The thermal efficiency, or heat efficiency, of a diesel engine is superior to that of the spark-ignited gasoline (Otto cycle) engine. As we know from information discussed earlier in this chapter, the diesel engine employs compression ratios much higher than those of a gasoline engine. This is necessary to create a high enough cylinder air temperature for the injected to vaporize and start to burn. The much higher combustion pressures and temperatures allow a greater expansion rate and more energy to be extracted from the fuel. Tremendous improvements have occurred in gasoline spark-ignited engines, particularly in the 1990s when fuel consumption improvements due to changes in engine component design, combustion improvements, and electronic control of distributaries ignition and fuel injection systems have resulted in thermal efficiencies in the area of 32 to 35%, and as high as 39%. Gasoline engines tend to return better fuel economy when held at a steady speed, such as during highway driving, but the suffer in city-driving cycles because of the intake manifold air-throttling and pumping losses that occur at lower speeds.
Diesel engines, on the other hand, do not suffer from a throttled air supply and operate with a stratified air charge in the cylinder under all operating conditions. The net result of the unthrottled air in the diesel engine is that at idle operation and light loads, the air fuel ratio in the cylinder is very lean (90:1 to 120:1). This excess air supply lowers the average specific heat of the cylinder gases, which in turn increases the indicated work obtained from a given amount of fuel.
To comply with EPA exhaust emissions standards, automotive gasoline engines have to operate close to stoichiometric air/fuel ratio, which is approximately 14:1. In other words, about 14kg of air is required to completely combust 1kg of fuel. Another way to look at this is that approximately 10,000 L of air is required to burn 1 L of gasoline. Even under full-load operating conditions the diesel engine operates with an excess air factor of at least 10 to 20%, which usually results in air/fuel ratios in the region 20:1 to 25:1. To meet exhaust emissions standards the gasoline engine relies on the exhaust-gas oxygen sensor to constantly monitor the “richness” or “leaness” of the exhaust gasses after combustion. This oxygen sensor sends update information continuously to the on-board ECM (electronic control module) to allow operation in what is commonly known as closed-loop operating mode. Failure of the oxygen sensor results in the engine falling into an open-loop mode (no signal to the ECM), and the ECM automatically resorts to a “limp-home” condition that allows the engine to run but at a reduced performance. Because of their excess air factor of operation, most diesel engines at this time do not need an exhaust-gas oxygen sensor, or a catalytic converter, although some light- and midrange mechanically controlled truck engines are equipped with converters.
Another advantage that the diesel engine enjoys over its gasoline counterpart is that diesel fuel contains about 11% more Btu per unit volume than that in gasoline. Therefore, the diesel engine would have a better return per dollar spent on fuel.
Title of Third Encyclopedia Entry “Steam Engine”
steam engine
steam engine, machine for converting heat energy into mechanical energy using steam as a medium, or working fluid. When water is converted into steam it expands, its volume increasing about 1,600 times. The force produced by the conversion is the basis of all steam engines. Steam engines operate by having superheated steam force a piston to reciprocate, or move back and forth, in a cylinder. The piston is attached by a connecting rod to a crankshaft that converts the back-and-forth motion of the piston to rotary motion for driving machinery. A flywheel attached to the crankshaft makes the rotary motion smooth and steady. The typical steam engine has an inlet valve at each end of the cylinder. Steam is admitted through one inlet valve, forcing the piston to move to the other end of the cylinder. This steam then exits through an exhaust valve. Steam from the other inlet valve then pushes the piston back to its original position, and the cycle starts again. In a single-cylinder steam engine the exhaust steam is usually expelled directly into the atmosphere. A compounded steam engine has several cylinders, which the steam passes through successively until, leaving the last cylinder, it is condensed into water and returned to the boiler. From the Greek inventor Heron of Alexandria to the Englishmen Thomas Newcomen and John Cawley, many persons contributed to the work of harnessing steam. However, James Watt's steam engine, patented in 1769, provided the first practical solution. Earlier engines depended on atmospheric pressure to push the piston into the cylinder, where a vacuum was created by sudden cooling of its steam content. Watt's use of a separate condenser resulted in a 75% saving in fuel. It also made possible the use of steam pressure to move the piston in both directions. Watt's continuing efforts produced a governor, a mercury steam gauge, and a crank-flywheel mechanism, all of which prepared the steam engine for a major role in the Industrial Revolution. Sailing vessels gave way to steamboats, and stagecoaches yielded to railroad trains as the steam engine was perfected. Transmitted by belts, ropes, shafts, pulleys, and gears, the energy from steam engines drove machines in factories and mills. Now, however, steam engines have been replaced in most applications by more economical and efficient devices, e.g., the steam turbine, the electric motor, and the internal-combustion engine, including the diesel engine. They are still sufficiently economical to be used in industries where steam is necessary for some purpose in addition to that of driving an engine.
See C. W. Pursell

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Research stuffs

Eric Renner
Eng 151 T/TH 12:45
Research Exercise #1 – Exploratory Research
Topics choices: Effects of Capitalism on Youth

Title of First Encyclopedia Entry “Capitalism”

This article is great, it lays down what capitalism is, where and how it was formed, and what systems of wealth came before, creating the system we see today.

Title of Second Encyclopedia Entry “Advertising”

Again much information was to be had: some history and events leading up to modern advertising.

Summary with Paraphrase

I would like to stress that capitalism is based on private ownership of the production facilities, profits coming from investment and “employment of labor.” Nowhere is it stated that the labor can profit from being labor. The article does state that government intervention is required to prevent an abuse of this system, but that is beyond the scope of this paper. Enter advertising. Now we get some good stuff to base a paper off: cited in the second article are the major criticisms surrounding advertising. First it creates markets based off imaginary values, selling to people stuff they don’t really want or need, second much of that stuff could even be bad for the consumer- like smokes and various drugs, etc. The advertiser’s rebuttal is a slippery claim to innocence, saying that advertising is to sell, not build up a system of values; that needs are being fulfilled- even if they are nonexistent at the time; and products are being improved via competition.

Response

Here I see a big hole in capitalism- the divide of the classes- being filled by an advertising industry dry-humping the proletarians into a false sense of reality, and getting them hooked on various products like the corner crack dealer. With a half-dazed, fattened stock of workers, there lies the potential to exploit, and exploit their children as well, were some one evil enough to do so. I know this sounds like it has a bit of a slant to it, but that’s just the dream sold in high school of “you can do anything” being fully realized as “you can do anything, provided you know the right people, have a good education, and are lucky as hell.”

Key words: Capitalism, Advertising

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

effects of capitalism on youth

capitalism
capitalism, economic system based on private ownership of the means of production, in which personal profit can be acquired through investment of capital and employment of labor.-infoplease source

The shameless drive to make money, the use of “voluntary slaves”- a so called free workforce, free to go to another dead end job, has some negative effects on the upcoming youth of that same workforce.

“If we are God’s unwanted children, so be it!”-fight club

Thursday, October 27, 2005

The Machines of the Future

The Machines of the Future By David Eric Renner
There I stood, seabag in one hand, nervous as hell and awed by the sheer size of the M. S. Patriot. She was about nine hundred feet of solid blue hull, a full eleven stories towering above the dock, with twenty two life boats strung around her main deck halfway up, very impressive. This blue monster floated there in stark contrast to the low profile killing machines I knew: submarines, where to float or sink was an option. My short military career had ended bitterly, leaving me without the skills I had signed up to learn and a poisonous level of disillusionment about the world in general. It was here amidst the dock workers and tourists I was about to embark on the most crucial job of my life, though I couldn’t have known that at the time.
As a submariner I was a radioman, a task equivalent to programming fourteen VCR’s at the same time, with the added weight of one of those machines potentially telling me to relay to the Captain missile coordinates for one of our nuclear payloads. As an ex-member of society, this had a heavy impact on my conscience, tearing me up from the inside out. There was a silver lining to my cloud of gloom and potential doom, though, as emphasized by Jane Bybee, psychology professor at Suffolk University during an interview for the ABC news article “Is guilt good for you?,” by John Stossel. She points out that “One of the markers of a psychopath is that the person doesn't experience guilt at all. Serial killer Ted Bundy, for example, said he felt no guilt after killing 28 people.” (Stossel) Twenty eight people is one thing, but I was a vital link in the conduit for several hundred thousand potential deaths, maybe more. While Ted Bundy had the courtesy to kill those people himself, at least my guilt says one decent thing about me; that I am still human. Consequences carrying such gravity are simply not a common thing in the civilian world. I wasn’t the only one with doubts in the service, the military just has a way of sounding right, no matter what. If there was anything I had learned in the navy, it was that if you did something with enough confidence, and the targeted organization was big and loose enough, you almost always got away with it. For the most part, that’s how the military deals with the public. That was why I was nervous: I was signed on for deck crew, and there was absolutely no way I was chipping paint for five months. However, it was my tentative foot in the door, and given enough bravado, I intended to grace the engines department and discover an entirely new and fascinating realm of mechanics, irrevocably changing my life and setting me on the path of engineering.
I was a civilian now, irritated by the lack of discipline and focus of my supposed peers. Regardless if I liked those traits or not, they certainly provided a certain “greasing of the cogs” and made life simple and smooth in the navy. All I knew was that I despised the civilian unskilled working realm and hated the military even more. My feelings were not completely unfounded, as painstakingly demonstrated by Barbara Ehrenriech in her misadventures through the blue collar working world. “Something is wrong, very wrong, when a single person in good health, a person who in addition possesses a working car, can barely support herself by the sweat of her own brow. You don’t need a degree in economics to see that wages are too low and rents too high.” (Ehrenriech) Of this I had fist hand experience in Hawaii, where the rich are really rich and the poor live to serve them. That all changed when I stepped aboard the cruise liner, the M.S. Patriot.
Once I had waltzed my way into the engine room, I felt something I had never felt before; I was enjoying my job! In the military a task is written in stone, the procedures set down as if they were sacred texts, reverently practiced by sharply uniformed monks with bad mustaches. On the other hand, our ship, the Patriot, was in a state of disarray and turmoil. The previous owners, Norwegian Cruises, had run her in pristine condition with a full engines crew of thirty plus. When ownership changed hands, her crew stole most of the tools and slacked off on maintenance, creating the ideal chaotic environment for me to get a crash course in wrenching and rigging. An opportunity like this would never have occurred had I set sail on any other ship. Here I found what I was good at: problem solving and learning, particularly when it came to machines. It was that element of chaos the navy lacked, for obvious reasons, that galvanized my approach to trouble shooting and work ethics.
While discipline and focus have their merits, something must be said for relaxing on the beach at three in the afternoon on a workday. This is a phenomenon that simply does not occur on the service side, not if your Command has anything to say about it. Since we were essentially doing figure eights around the Hawaiian islands with a load of tourists, port call came often. On good days, we would complete our tasks and be in the surf by early afternoon. At night there was the cool ocean air to accompany the sight of lava flowing into the ocean at a thousand yards off shore, or the stars above the bay. There are more factors than stars and lava that promote, or disrupt, the satisfaction of a workplace. Lynn Franco, director of the consumer research center for the New York Conference Board points out “The interest in the work, the people you work with -- that kind of thing may help compensate for wages.” (Anderson) The first biweekly paycheck aboard the cruise liner was worth nearly a months pay of a third class petty officer, my old rank. In naval dry dock: the act of putting a submarine on blocks for extensive maintenance, my lot was to keep company with a bunch of ornery, smelly men, speaking such abominations as to peel the paint off a nuclear burrito the length of a football field. I remember feeling my life draining away in utter worthlessness while standing watch, staring at two sixty foot high doors holding back the entire sea. You can’t tell the ocean to stop and show identification, you can only ask nicely, and it is likely she won’t listen.
Throughout the spring and summer aboard the Patriot I absorbed more mechanical knowledge than in my entire life prior. I developed a connection to machinery, a deeper “grokking of,” to borrow a term from Robert A. Hienlien and his Martian, Valentine Michael Smith (Hienlien). Here was something that felt right, not a waste of time or boring repetition of mind numbing activity, such as standing watch against unstoppable forces. Paranoid as George Orwell may be, he brought up a very good point in his dark novel, 1984, under the “Theory and practice of Oligarchical Collectivism by Emanuel Goldstein,” illustrating very succinctly what I felt my entire military career: “War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.” (Orwell) I had no future there and felt it with every fiber of my being. But when it came to machines and the things they could do, all that potential whirring and clicking away, I saw emancipation for myself and for anyone else involved. This was something that I could pour my entire being into, and receive more from it in terms of satisfaction and enjoyment than invested. Mechanics and engineering were to become my future that summer, a future that is gaining in clarification and brilliance every day.


















Works Cited
Anderson, Porter; Job Satisfaction: Oxymoron? CNN News Interview with Lynn Franco. 24 Oct. 2000
Ehrenreich, Barbara; Nickel and Dimed. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2001.
Hienlien, Robert A.; Stranger in a Strange Land. New York: Ace Books, 1961
Orwell, George; 1984. Public Domain: Copyright Expired george-orwell.org
Stossel, John; Is Guilt Good for You? ABC News Interview with Jane Bybee. 17 Jan. 2004

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Response of the response of the review of the preview

I am abysmally disappointed. No gnashing of teeth or ripping asunder of bad concepts or poorly organized texts. Just a half hearted "good descriptions". I was rather thrilled with the air of confusion surrounding my thesis though, so now I have something to work with.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

A Line in the Sand

There is a line drawn in the sand of everyone's individual beach as to where friends stop being "just friends", and start becoming deeper, more intimate relationships. This line gets washed away and rescratched many times, and is certain to be different for everyone. Personally, I view love and friendship as one and the same, just different levels of engagement.
I have love for my friends and family, and I can certainly say I love my family more than my friends. Allow me to clarify my version of love briefly: love is the combining of, the point where two people stop being two people and share something on a level deeper than words. It can be as simple as two friends pointing and laughing at a frivolous thing or down the spiralling depths of a fully intimate romance, conscious minds melting together into one pulsating, brilliant being, drawing lasting connections together like flash spots in the retina after looking at the sun. Enter the line in the sand, a door way, a defensive wall. This protection is a natural thing derived from social upbringing and reinforced by experience. We realize over time that relations are not permenent, not even family. People die, move and change, and so do we. For every engagement there are consequences, and our line in the sand is the decisive tool, weighing out pro's and con's against experience and our own mysterious psyches.

The Machines of the Future

The Machines of the Future
By Eric Renner
There I stood, seabag in one hand, nervous as hell and awed by the size of the M. S. Patriot. She was about nine hundred feet of solid blue hull, a full eleven stories towering above the dock, with twenty two life boats strung about the top deck, very impressive. I was about to embark on the most crucial job of my life, though I couldn’t have known that at the time. All I knew was that I despised the civilian unskilled working realm and hated the military even more. My short military service career had ended bitterly, leaving me without the skills I had signed up to learn and a poisonous level of disillusionment about the world in general.
Two weeks prior I had met an employee of this behemoth vessel and put it firmly in my head to go work on the engines. I had never done anything of the sort before, so I was winging it all the way. If there was anything I had learned in the military it was that if you did something with enough confidence, and the organization was big and loose enough, you almost always got away with it. That was why I was nervous: I was signed on for deck crew, but there was absolutely no way I was chipping paint for five months. However, that was my foot in the door, and given enough confidence I was to grace the engine’s department and discover an entirely new and fascinating realm of mechanics, changing my life and setting me on the path of engineering.
After I had waltzed my way into the engine room, I felt something I had never felt before; I was enjoying my job! Our ship, the Patriot, was bought from the Dutch, and the entire crew sacked, leaving the engine department in disarray and turmoil, cultivating fertile ground for a crash course in wrenching and rigging. Here I found out what it was that I was good at: problem solving and learning, particularly when it came to machines. There was an element of chaos that the navy lacked, for obvious reasons, but that galvanized my approach to trouble shooting and work ethics.
Since we were essentially doing figure eights around the Hawaiian Islands, port call came often. We would complete our duties and be on the beach by early afternoon on good days. At night there was the cool ocean air to accompany the sight of lava flowing into the sea, or stars above the bay. Dry dock was never this much fun; a bunch of ornery, smelly men speaking such abominations as to peel the paint off a nuclear burrito the length of a football field. I remember feeling my life draining away in utter worthlessness while standing watch, staring at two sixty foot high doors holding back the entire sea. You can’t tell the ocean to stop and show identification, you can only ask nicely, and it is likely she won’t listen.
Throughout the spring and summer aboard the Patriot I absorbed more mechanical knowledge than in my entire life prior. I developed a connection to machinery, a deeper “groking” of, to borrow from Robert A. Hienlien. Here was something that felt right, not a waste of time or boring repetition of mind numbing activity. This was something I could pour my entire being into and get back more from it in terms of satisfaction and enjoyment. Mechanics and engineering were to become my future that summer, a future that is gaining in clarification and brilliance every day.