From: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org (idealcopy-digest) To: idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Subject: idealcopy-digest V7 #191 Reply-To: idealcopy@smoe.org Sender: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk idealcopy-digest Tuesday, June 29 2004 Volume 07 : Number 191 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [idealcopy] mark inquired.. [MarkBursa@aol.com] Re: [idealcopy] carbon -> hydrogen economy [MarkBursa@aol.com] Re: [idealcopy] RE: cheap gas............. [MarkBursa@aol.com] RE: [idealcopy] Ordier - Bruce Gilbert / Norman Records [Adrian Cooke hydrogen economy ["Steve Loubert" >I'm not claiming this to be an authoritative word on the subject,<< OK, I'll bite. I've a degree in transport management and have worked as a journalist/analyst of the auto industry for the best part of two decades. And I cover aviation issues too. So I might qualify as an expert.... >>but I was talking about this very thing to a friend who's pretty environmentally aware a couple of days back. I was saying that unnecessary car journeys are doing great pollution damage, etc, and he replied "Yes, but the exhaust from jet fuel is also a significant contributor to the total.<< It's relatively small compared to heavy plant and cars. There are two pollution issues regarding aircraft. 1: They cause more damage in the ground than in the air. This is also exacerbated by large numbers of ground vehicles at airports. 2: The effects of vapour trails (effectively man-made-clouds) on Global Warming is small but significant. Air travel may be growing, but as older aircraft are replaced, the emissions produced are dramatically reduced as new ones (with high-bypass fan engines) are much cleaner. >> But THE worst, he rather surprisingly told me, was shipping, in that the fuel oil they tend to use is the cheapest, nastiest most sulphurous they can get their hands on. Furthermore, out on the high seas, there's a noticeable lack of the pollution inspectorate, so they go onto the tankfuls of *really* cruddy stuff. As an added bonus, ships are also wont to flush the crap out of empty tanks at sea, and dump the effluent 'over the side'. Now I know the number of ships plying the oceans of the world isn't that great compared to autos & planes, but they *do* have collossal engines, in terms of cubic capacity and hence fuel requirements, so it sounds plausible. Anyone know if these assertions are correct? << Shipping is certainly a contributor - though dumping oil nand fuel into the sea creates different pollutioin, obviously. But ships have a far longer lifespan than cars, so it takes longer to get the old polluters out of the system. Also consider the concentration of pollution of both ships and planes - it's widely spread, so has a different effect than car pollution, which tends to concentrate in cities. The cars on the road are getting cleaner - modern cars have very low emissions, and with the average age of cars at 10-12 years, the overall effect will reduce - so long as new markets such as China builds cars that meet the latest standards, not ones based on obsolete technology. As the market grows and car companies seek an advantage, this is starting to happen. Companies like Honda and Toyota don't mess around - they build their latest models in emerging markets. A frightening stat about China: the country's 'middle class' (ie the number of people with an annual salary of $10k or more) is now estimated at 285m. This is the same as the total US population. The car market more than doubled last year and should overtake Japan as the 2nd largest in the world by 2010. General Motors concedes China will overtake the US at some point, probably around 2025 (US market = 13m vehicles). Bigger problems in these regions are the larger numbers of older mopeds, tuk-tuks, buses and trucks that are still on the roads. Only small numbers of the population can afford new vehicles - so older and dirtier ones last far longer than in the developed world. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:50:07 EDT From: MarkBursa@aol.com Subject: Re: [idealcopy] carbon -> hydrogen economy And I do hope China won't build its new infrastructure based on the old carbon economy. What a waste that would be! Too late already. The oil industry has too much of a vested interest. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:48:52 EDT From: MarkBursa@aol.com Subject: Re: [idealcopy] RE: cheap gas............. >>I just read about the Toyota Prius (hybrid-electric) being the least poluting car around these days. Seems it's becoming quite popular even in the US.<< Problem with Prius is its complexity. It effectively has two propulsion systems - electric and petrol - incorporated into one large (and expensive to make) unit. Toyota makes a big loss on it, but considers this worthwhile to get on the learning curve early. Also it doesn't class as a zero-emissions vehicle so is not acceptable in the eyes of California enviro-fascists (CARB), who have made car companies waste billions on developing impractical electric cars rather than incentivising the big SUVs off the road... >>The dutch environment minister testdrove one for a few months, but returned it because it supposedly wasn't big enough to work in. This was investigated and turned out to be total rubbish. Apparantly the snob thought it didn't sooth his sorry stature. So much for giving the right example!<< Well if he's used to being ferried around in a Merc it wouldn't suit him - Prius is about the size of a VW Golf. >>Personally I'm can't wait for the hydrogen economy to kick the butt of the whole carbon fuel era. Iceland leads the way! _http://www.hydrogennow.org_ (http://www.hydrogennow.org) << Whole new set of problems. No distribution system, plus safety issues regarding liquid hydrogen are a significant obstacle. Car makers are dragging their heels on fuel cell vehicles. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:23:19 +0100 From: Adrian Cooke Subject: RE: [idealcopy] Ordier - Bruce Gilbert / Norman Records Wow, well I hope I sold you some great records myself! Think the staff have changed since I worked there but my friend Adam is still there. He's the tall, lanky mod with greying curly hair and inevitably wearing blue or brown cords! Good bloke Adam, worth chatting to in order to source some great new music if you don't do so already. In fact if you do end up talking to him if you tell him that our paths have crossed on a Wire newsgroup he'll probably be mightily impressed/amused! Adrian - ----- Original Message ----- From: Adrian Cooke > I worked in Jumbo from 1996 to 2001. Were you one of my customers? > Adrian > Yes indeed Adrian - though not a huge spender in those days. I've been buying from/browsing in Jumbo for over 20 years. First album I ever bought in there was Half Machine Lip Moves (import) by Chrome in 1980 - when Jumbo was in the Merrion Centre. The most recent was Spore by Scanner, just the other day. Ian ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:34:28 EDT From: MarkBursa@aol.com Subject: Re: [idealcopy] RE: cheap gas............. >>///// The distribution system could be introduced pretty rapidly, if the will existed, I'm sure. Although touted as an environmentally friendlier fuel, The roll-out for Liquid Petroleum Gas has been sluggish and patchy in my neighbourhood, but I believe the change, to such a [comparatively] environmentally benign fuel as hydrogen will result in a *much* faster setup of necessary infrastructure. << Liquid hydrogen requires far more careful handling than LPG. It's more volatile, and much colder - minus 250 degrees C. LPG is just abvout useable, but you still need a pressue tank in the car, which takes up interior space and looks ugly. >> IMO, the safety issues surrounding the storage of large amounts of pressurised hydrogen in gas stations, not to mention the need to produce fuel-tanks that can survive a traffic smash intact poses *much* more of an obstacle.<< Correct. Though it's not stored as a pressurised gas, but as a very cold liquid. >>The consequences of several gallons of liquid hydrogen igniting all at once don't bear thinking about... << Not the problem. It would dissipate into the atmosphere pretty quickly - once it turns from liquid to gas. The problem is liquid hydrogen being spleased from a car crash on to, say, a bus queue of schoolchildren. The problem in reverse put a stop to research into sodium sulphur batteries - - it had to be maintained at a very high temperature. >> (See R101, Hindenberg, and several Atlas-Agena rocket 'misfires' for examples..... :-( << Urban myths dept - hydrogen "caused" the two famous airship crashes. R101's crash (more of a forced landing) was due to a ruptured gas tank in bad weather. It would have crashed if helium had been used instead. But the hydrogen ignited after the forced landing due to the ruptured tank. Hydrogen is blamed for the Hindenburg crash, incorrectly. It was caused by static build-up (inadequate degaussing, just like with your computer screen) causing sparks which ignited fumes from the doped canvas of the airship. Hence the clearly visible flames in film of the crash. Hydrogen buns without a flame - so that's not what's burning. While the hydogen would have sped up the process, the Hindenburg would, as with R101, still have crashed and burned if it had been filled with Helium. Rockets go wrong precisely because you ARE burning the volatile fuel. Most accidents (eg Challenger) are caused by defective seals etc - 50cent rubber parts. >>REALLY? That is a disappointment. I can only wonder why,<< Because of the hydrogen problem. Fuel cells can be powered either by hydrogen or by gasoline, methanol or some such which is converted into hydrogen and water by an on-board reformer. These are prohibitively expensive; the alternative of using liquid hydrogen in a tank is considered too dangerous. Running prototypes have existed for years; making them safe and cheap enough for people to afford is another matter. >> when NASA engineers have been electrically powering space vehicles from *at least* the start of the Apollo program (Apollo 1 was constructed during 1966) , right through the Shuttle program and beyond (1980 to date), that we aren't further down the road of developing the technology to provide the motive power for cars. << Different concept. Solar cells work very well in space! >>Why *are* they dragging their heels? Are fuel-cell powered vehicles not so efficient enough now, to the point where the old problems of limited range & endurance have been defeated? << See above. >>Sometimes I wonder if the widely believed 'urban myth', ie that oil companies either buy up the patents, or put the kybosh on any and all technologies that threaten their pre-eminence, is *really* quite so far-fetched after all....? << If oil companies could make it work they would - they're perfectly placed to benefit as they have the distribution networks in place. But until reuelling using alternative fuels is made as simple as filling up with petrol, people will not accept it. You're better off concentrating on hybrid technology that is not a quantum leap, but brings significant fuel economy savings - say 30-40%. Toyota & Honda have taken this approach and have now moved to 2nd generation hybrids that are *almost* a viable business proposition too. And the Japanese, as ever, are playing the long game, taking the short-term hit to gain a lead. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:41:40 -0500 From: "Steve Loubert" Subject: Re: [idealcopy] carbon -> hydrogen economy > Personally I'm can't wait for the hydrogen economy to kick the butt of the > whole carbon fuel era. Iceland leads the way! http://www.hydrogennow.org > > Bart Could someone explain to me how hydrogen would have any effect on the use of carbon fuel? From what I understand (not that much), hydrogen is merely a storage medium. It has to be manufactured, most likely using carbon fuels or nuclear power. I think that it's hydrogen versus batteries rather than hydrogen versus carbon, right? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:59:22 +0100 From: Tim Subject: [idealcopy] OT: Secret Machines plus Daedulus Saw Secret Machines tonight at my local Indie Toilet... Splendid they were too. Think Wayne Coyne sings Bowie, with John Bonham on Drums, backed by a hybrid of Can, Harmonia, Spritualized, Silo and My Bloody Valentine. ( A 3 piece by the way!) On the downside, They have a worrying 'The Wall'-era Floyd thing going on which they slipped into mid-set dirge....but you forgive them when you see that drummer with his piledriver beats, sticks like two baseball bats, and hair-a-flailing. Anyway, kind of refreshing to see a new band not entirely fully-mediaformed. These might just get a career lasting more than the current vogueish Warholian 15 mins and maybe...pre 00s style....you should get a stellar 2nd/3rd LP out of these....(Franz Ferdinand they ain't!). I suspect a Wire influence, as 'Road Leads Where its Lead' could be the missing like between 'A Serious of Snakes' and 'Map Ref..' and 'Sad and Lonely' has 'Send'-esque guitars, and 'First Wave Intact' has a Silo/Dugga feel as well. I would have hung around to ask the band afterwards but it was hotter than a blast furnace in the venue and we just had to get going. N.P. Daedulus - A Gent Agent: Anything that samples both 808 State and The Beach Boys has gotta be in my faves for 2004! Utter Genius. Lush orchestral/junkstore easy listening/disco/80s electro/ragga samples/funny film dialogue..mashed-up, speedfreek-scratching, cut and spliced to buggery in a quite breathtaking way, and just unsettling and feck'd up enough to piss off the ChillOut/CoolTempo brigade..but coherent enough for those with harder ears to to groove on like a bastard. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:39:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Derek White Subject: Re: [idealcopy] RE: cheap gas............. >>Personally I'm can't wait for the hydrogen economy to kick the butt of the whole carbon fuel era. Iceland leads the way! _http://www.hydrogennow.org_ (http://www.hydrogennow.org) << Whole new set of problems. No distribution system, plus **safety issues regarding liquid hydrogen** are a significant obstacle. ///// The distribution system could be introduced pretty rapidly, if the will existed, I'm sure. Although touted as an environmentally friendlier fuel, The roll-out for Liquid Petroleum Gas has been sluggish and patchy in my neighbourhood, but I believe the change, to such a [comparatively] environmentally benign fuel as hydrogen will result in a *much* faster setup of necessary infrastructure. IMO, the safety issues surrounding the storage of large amounts of pressurised hydrogen in gas stations, not to mention the need to produce fuel-tanks that can survive a traffic smash intact poses *much* more of an obstacle. The consequences of several gallons of liquid hydrogen igniting all at once don't bear thinking about... (See R101, Hindenberg, and several Atlas-Agena rocket 'misfires' for examples..... :-( Car makers are dragging their heels on fuel cell vehicles. REALLY? That is a disappointment. I can only wonder why, when NASA engineers have been electrically powering space vehicles from *at least* the start of the Apollo program (Apollo 1 was constructed during 1966) , right through the Shuttle program and beyond (1980 to date), that we aren't further down the road of developing the technology to provide the motive power for cars. Why *are* they dragging their heels? Are fuel-cell powered vehicles not so efficient enough now, to the point where the old problems of limited range & endurance have been defeated? Sometimes I wonder if the widely believed 'urban myth', ie that oil companies either buy up the patents, or put the kybosh on any and all technologies that threaten their pre-eminence, is *really* quite so far-fetched after all....? dw Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:52:32 +0200 From: Bart van Damme Subject: [idealcopy] Sonics US & Europe tour Sonic Youth still plan to tour North America this summer, and are currently adding shows almost daily to the schedule. Here is what is known so far: July 13 - Vancouver - Commodore Club ON SALE NOW July 14 - Seattle - Showbox ON SALE NOW July 15 - Portland OR - Crystal Ballroom ON SALE NOW July 17 - San Francisco - The Fillmore ON SALE NOW July 20 - San Diego - SOMA July 21 - Phoenix - Marquee ON SALE NOW July 23 - Las Vegas - House Of Blues at Mandalay Bay ON SALE NOW July 25 - Salt Lake City - In The Venue (formerly Bricks) ON SALE NOW July 26 - Denver - Ogden July 28 - Minneapolis - Quest ON SALE NOW July 29 - Chicago - The Vic Theatre ON SALE NOW July 30 - Milwaukee - The Rave ON SALE NOW July 31 - Columbia MO - Blue Note ON SALE NOW August 2 - Detroit - Marquee August 4 - Montreal - Metropolis ON SALE NOW August 5 - Toronto - Koolhaus August 6 - Ottawa - Capital Hall ON SALE NOW August 11 - Washington DC - 9:30 Club August 14 - Boston - Avalon August 15 - Portland ME - State Theatre ON SALE NOW August 19 - Raleigh - Cat's Cradle August 20 - Asheville NC - The Orange Peel Sonic Youth will also tour briefly in Europe. Confirmed dates are: August 27 - Paris (St. Cloud) Rock En Seine August 28 - Oudenaarde, Belgium Feest in Het Park > August 30 - Amsterdam Paradiso (Yay!) September 1 - Glasgow Barrowland September 2 - London Brixton Academy September 4 - Bologna, Italy Independent Days Festival For ticket information and to keep abreast of the newest tour developments, go to www.sonicyouth.com. ------------------------------ End of idealcopy-digest V7 #191 *******************************