Kent Bye just recently relocated to San Francisco from Maine, and the Bay Area will never be the same :-)
Just found this cool vid of Kent Bye and Jay Dedman walking through San Francisco discussing the role of citizen journalism's influence on big media and their continued state of denial regarding its obvious impact.
Translation: Turns out that people's opinions do matter after all!
Update 4/13/07 - Kent explained to me that "That vid is actually from NYC way back in October of 2005. :)
Jay shot it and was cleaning up his archives during VBW07"
I saw Stephen Hawking last night at the Paramount Theatre in Oakland, California.
It was my birthday, and I couldn't think of any place I'd rather be -- hanging out with one of my heroes thinking about the birth of the Universe.
His talk was really cool. He postulated upon the question of "when the universe began," and likened it to trying to go "further south than the south pole." He also joked about being imprisoned by the Inquisition for daring to ponder the question -- an act one pope or another likened to questioning God.
The Q and A portion of the lecture was particularly neat. Here are some of the questions and answers that I could remember. (I wrote down some notes right after the show while they were fresh in my mind -- so two of these are not exactly word for word - but damn close - and the other two quoted answers are exact.)
Q: What do you think of President Bush's plan to send a man to the moon?S.H.: "Stupid. Robots are cheaper to send, and you don't have to bring them back."
Q: What do you think of the United States' position on Stem Cell Research?
S.H.: England and most of the developed world has the view that there are many opportunities in Stem Cell Research. The U.S. will fall behind.
Q: If you had a chance to meet Issac Newton or Marilyn Monroe, which would you pick?
S.H.: Marilyn. I heard Issac was a disagreeable sort.
Q: What's your IQ?
S.H.: "I have no idea." People that care about IQ's are losers.
Updated 11-12 - I almost forgot my favorite question:
Q: You were depicted on the Simpsons. How did you like that?
S.H.: "I think the Simpsons is the best thing on American Television."
He's got a new book out I can't wait to read, A Briefer History of Time.
Or it may not. But it kinda seems like it.
(I love this stuff. The sooner we figure out how the brain works, the sooner we can go about creating a computer to house our consciousness, the sooner we can get on with the singularity already.)
(Never mind that it'll never work :-)
BRAIN PIC: CENTER FOR BRAIN AND COGNITION, UCSD
Brain Region Linked to Metaphor Comprehension
Vilayanur S. Ramachandran of the University of California at San Diego and his colleagues tested four patients who had experienced damage to the left angular gyrus region of their brains...The angular gyrus is more developed in humans than in other primates and is located in the brain at the junction of areas specialized for processing touch, hearing and vision. "While it would be premature to conclude that the angular gyrus is the 'metaphor center' of the human brain," Ramachandran says, "we suggest that the evolution of the dominant angular gyrus contributed enormously to the evolution of many quintessentially human abilities, including metaphorical--and other abstract--thinking." He will present the results on Friday at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society in Los Angeles.
Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000BE01D-E7E3-1294-A7E383414B7F0000
SCIENCE NEWS
May 26, 2005
Brain Region Linked to Metaphor Comprehension
Science Image: brain scan
Image: CENTER FOR BRAIN AND COGNITION, UCSD
Metaphors make for colorful sayings, but can be confusing when taken literally. A study of people who are unable to make sense of figures of speech has helped scientists identify a brain region they believe plays a key role in grasping metaphors.
Vilayanur S. Ramachandran of the University of California at San Diego and his colleagues tested four patients who had experienced damage to the left angular gyrus region of their brains. All of the volunteers were fluent in English and otherwise intelligent, mentally lucid and able to engage in normal conversations. But when the researchers presented them with common proverbs and metaphors such as "the grass is always greener on the other side" and "reaching for the stars," the subjects interpreted the sayings literally almost all of the time. After being pressed by the interviewers to provide deeper meaning, "the patients often came up with elaborate, even ingenious interpretations, that were completely off the mark," Ramachandran remarks. For example, patient SJ expounded on "all that glitters is not gold" by noting that you should be careful when buying jewelry because the sellers could rob you of your money.
The angular gyrus is more developed in humans than in other primates and is located in the brain at the junction of areas specialized for processing touch, hearing and vision. "While it would be premature to conclude that the angular gyrus is the 'metaphor center' of the human brain," Ramachandran says, "we suggest that the evolution of the dominant angular gyrus contributed enormously to the evolution of many quintessentially human abilities, including metaphorical--and other abstract--thinking." He will present the results on Friday at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society in Los Angeles. --Sarah Graham
This just in from R.U. Sirius:
Does transhumanism suck? Will humanity be transformed in 2012? Are
smart homes stupid? Should the editor of a webzine be interviewed by
his publisher about his own book if that book is a history of counterculture?
Brian Eno will be giving a lecture for the Long Now Foundation next Friday night.
He's actually on the Board of Directors there.
Here's what was emailed to me:
Musician/producer/artist BRIAN ENO
http://www.longnow.org/about/board/eno.htm
will be giving a rare free public lecture next week at
Fort Mason in San
Francisco on Friday, Nov. 14, in the Herbst Pavillion.
Coffee bar opens at
7pm, lecture at 8pm. Directions to Herbst Pavillion are
here
http://www.fortmason.org/directions/index.html.This is not a concert. Brian Eno will be speaking about
"The Long Now." His
talk will be the first of a monthly series of Seminars
About Long-term
Thinking, sponsored by The Long Now Foundation
(http://www.longnow.org). His
talks are usually as amazing as his music.The on-going lectures in this new series will be every
second Friday at Fort
Mason. Future speakers include Peter Schwartz, George
Dyson, Laurie
Anderson, Rusty Schweickart, Paul Hawken, Daniel
Janzen, and Danny Hillis.Admission to the lectures is free (a $10 donation is
welcome but NOT
required). The hall holds about 700 people. For
unticketed lectures like
this it's a good idea to come early for a good seat.Please feel free post and forward this invitation.
Dalai Lama visit provides a subject for scientists
By Gareth Cook for the Boston Globe.
(Thanks, Jon!)
For more than 15 years, the Dalai Lama has been inviting small groups of top Western scientists to his Himalayan home for private discussions about science and its potential links to Buddhist thought. At an MIT auditorium tomorrow, the Tibetan leader will begin presiding over two days of intense discussions -- the first ones open to the public -- aimed at understanding what happens inside the meditating brain, and what it can reveal about the broader workings of the human mind...Prominent Western scientists have already begun to find that meditation can have a profound effect on the brain and the body. This month, University of Wisconsin professor Richard J. Davidson published a paper showing that people who meditated were able to mount a stronger fight against the flu -- suggesting that teaching the technique could help boost their immune systems.
Meditation, his study showed, appeared to moderate the activity of a part of the brain, the right prefrontal cortex, associated with negative emotions like anger and fear. The meditators who experienced the greatest reduction of activity in this area, the study showed, created the most antibodies to fight the flu...
Such a project could hold the potential to expand the field of neuroscience, suggesting whole new areas of study. Davidson, for example, has embarked on a research program to study compassion, an emotion that is a central concept in Buddhist psychology, but which Western science has largely ignored. If the Buddhists are correct, then Western researchers have missed an important part of the brain's emotional machinery, one whose cultivation could have profound effects on society.
"We want to place compassion center stage as a focus of legitimate scientific inquiry," said Davidson. "These guys can turn it on at will."
Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/12/dalai_lama_visit_provides_a_subject_for_scientists/
Dalai Lama visit provides a subject for scientists
By Gareth Cook, Globe Staff, 9/12/2003
The Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of an ancient religion, arrives in Boston today with a surprising goal: changing the field of neuroscience.
ADVERTISEMENT
For more than 15 years, the Dalai Lama has been inviting small groups of top Western scientists to his Himalayan home for private discussions about science and its potential links to Buddhist thought. At an MIT auditorium tomorrow, the Tibetan leader will begin presiding over two days of intense discussions -- the first ones open to the public -- aimed at understanding what happens inside the meditating brain, and what it can reveal about the broader workings of the human mind.
Though many Western researchers are skeptical about working with a man who believes in reincarnation and was chosen for his position based on a vision in a lake, the MIT conference quickly sold out to an audience of about 1,200 people, mainly scientists, and racked up a waiting list of 1,600.
The conference is designed to bring scientists and Buddhists together to devise experiments that explore the unusual abilities of Buddhist monks and others trained in meditation, with the goal of better understanding what the brain can accomplish when carefully focused.
Top scientists say they have come to view meditation as an increasingly important area of research and are thrilled at the Dalai Lama's promise to send substantial numbers of Buddhist monks to Western laboratories, where their brains can be studied with the latest scanning equipment.
"This is opening a secret body of rich knowledge that we have not had access to," said Marlene Behrmann, who is speaking at the conference and is a professor of psychology at Carnegie Mellon University. "It is a watershed."
Scientists who have met the Dalai Lama say they have been struck at his openness to science. He has said he has been interested in science since he was a boy, when he took wristwatches apart and put them back together.
His presence at the conference, said scientists who have met him, seems a genuine effort to bring together science and the 2,500-year Buddhist tradition in a productive new way -- while also making a political point about his religion.
"It is too easy for people to imagine that Tibetan Buddhism is some far-off ancient religion," said Eric Lander, the noted MIT genomics researcher, who traveled to the Dalai Lama's home in exile in Dharamsala, India, for a meeting last year. "It sends a very important message to say that Tibetan Buddhists are not in the least reluctant to talk to scientists, even scientists who do not agree with them."
Prominent Western scientists have already begun to find that meditation can have a profound effect on the brain and the body. This month, University of Wisconsin professor Richard J. Davidson published a paper showing that people who meditated were able to mount a stronger fight against the flu -- suggesting that teaching the technique could help boost their immune systems.
Meditation, his study showed, appeared to moderate the activity of a part of the brain, the right prefrontal cortex, associated with negative emotions like anger and fear. The meditators who experienced the greatest reduction of activity in this area, the study showed, created the most antibodies to fight the flu.
This weekend's conference, called "Investigating the Mind," is not primarily focused on the health effects of meditation. It is organized around three broad topics -- attention, emotion, and mental imagery -- that are active areas of research in brain science and which might benefit from the participation of highly trained Buddhists.
Mental imagery is a vital question to scientists for its close links to thinking and memory. One cannot remember the location of a parked car, for instance, without such imagery.
Buddhists claim to be able to do things that directly contradict the findings of Western scientists, said Stephen Kosslyn, a leading expert on mental imagery who is a professor of psychology at Harvard University. In studies of Western subjects, Kosslyn has found people can't hold onto a detailed mental image, and take time to put the pieces of such an image together. Buddhists, however, say they are able to hold a rich image in mind for minutes at a time, and to conjure up a complex image practically instantly, a process, he said, they describe as "like a fish leaping from water."
Kosslyn, who is participating in the conference, said that he is skeptical of those claims, but that a collaboration with Buddhist monks would yield useful information about the brain.
"From my perspective, these are like the virtuosos of mental imagery," he said. "They show what mental training can achieve."
At the heart of the conference, which is cosponsored by the McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT, will be three sessions where the Dalai Lama, joined by a panel of prominent scientists and Buddhist scholars, will discuss ways to collaborate on future research. The goal, say conference organizers, is to devise a specific research program, including experiments. The Mind and Life Institute will help find funding for experiments from individual donors and foundations, with the hope that the National Institutes of Health will begin to fund projects as well if the research goes well.
The Dalai Lama has not made any specific promises about how many people might participate in experiments, according to Adam Engle, the chairman and co-founder of the Mind and Life Institute, which has been fostering scientific exchanges with the Dalai Lama since 1987 and is cosponsoring the conference.
Such a project could hold the potential to expand the field of neuroscience, suggesting whole new areas of study. Davidson, for example, has embarked on a research program to study compassion, an emotion that is a central concept in Buddhist psychology, but which Western science has largely ignored. If the Buddhists are correct, then Western researchers have missed an important part of the brain's emotional machinery, one whose cultivation could have profound effects on society.
"We want to place compassion center stage as a focus of legitimate scientific inquiry," said Davidson. "These guys can turn it on at will."
For the Buddhists involved in the conference, the work is partly motivated by curiosity. Understanding the true nature of the universe is a fundamental tenet of Buddhism.
"Religions as a whole are prone to ossification and dogmatism," said B. Alan Wallace, a scholar at the Mind and Life Institute and president of the Santa Barbara Institute. A lively interaction with modern science, he said, "may really help rescue Buddhism from this tendency."
The Dalai Lama has also told the scientists involved in the conference that he hopes the research will yield techniques that everyone, Buddhist or otherwise, can use to lead lives where positive emotions outweigh negative ones. Buddhists believe that humans are prone to suffering because their minds are overly focused on negative emotions.
By joining with the Buddhists, brain scientists could transform the inner world the way science and technology has already transformed the outer world, according to Tendzin Choegyal, the Dalai Lama's younger brother.
"I think this [conference] is very significant in mankind's pursuit of happiness," Choegyal said.
Gareth Cook can be reached at cook@globe.com.
This is a scene from an old mid-1970's episode of "The Rockford Files" (feel free to help me with any details on this episode. I'm happy to update this posting.)
For those of you who aren't familiar with the show. Jim Rockford is a private investigator (James Garner) that will often drive around and question people for his different clients. He often poses as an Insurance Agent or Gov Official or something (usually with a fake business card and everything) in order to keep his cover.
In this scene, his "client" is actually his own father, because Jim has learned that his dad owned some old claims to some oil wells (er something) that were thought to be worthless before and now, what do ya know, might not be. (This is actually a common thread of western movies/tv shows as far back as I can remember.)
So Jim goes out, in good faith (he's an ex-cop and an ex-con, but he's still a relatively honest guy), to find out who else has a claim on the land (along with his dad) and to verify if his dad's claim is even any good, so he can decide what to do from there.
I'm just guessing (I didn't see the whole episode), but from what I know about the Rockford Files (I grew up watching them because my mom was a big fan), sometime soon after this scene, someone starts threatening or making attempts on his dad's life, forcing Jim to actually get to the bottom of whatever's going on, rather than just find out what him and his dad need to know.
With that, I'll just let the clip speak for itself. I imagine it will mean different things to different people, and that's kind of the point.
Enjoy!
Rockford Files On Wars Over Oil (Small - 7 MB)
Rockford Files On Wars Over Oil (Hi-res- 95 MB)
Jim Rockford (James Garner)
Don't know this guy's name...
Bomb Shelter
This is a great article on why Hydrogen cells can work, and what we need to get started doing technologically and regulatory/legislative-wise so we can get the show on the road. (Thanks Joi.)
How Hydrogen Can Save America
By Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall for Wired.
There's only one way to insulate the US from the corrosive power of oil, and that's to develop an alternative energy resource that's readily available domestically. Looking at the options - coal, natural gas, wind, water, solar, and nuclear - there's only one thing that can provide a wholesale substitute for foreign oil within a decade: hydrogen. Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries, burns twice as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion engine (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), and leaves only water behind. It's plentiful, clean, and - critically - capable of powering cars. Like manned space flight in 1961, hydrogen power is proven but primitive, a technology ripe for acceleration and then deployment. (For that, thank the Apollo program itself, which spurred the development of early fuel cells.)...How Hydrogen Can Save America:
1. Solve the hydrogen fuel-tank problem.
2. Encourage mass production of fuel cell vehicles.
3. Convert the nation's fueling infrastructure to hydrogen.
4. Ramp up hydrogen production.
5. Mount a public campaign to sell the hydrogen economy.
By pursuing all five at once, the government can create a self-sustaining cycle of supply and demand that gains momentum over the coming decade and supplants the existing energy market in the decades that follow. Rather than waiting to build a hydrogen infrastructure from scratch, the US can start building the new fuel economy immediately by piggybacking on existing petroleum-based industries. Once customers are demanding and producers are supplying, there will be time to create a cleaner, more efficient hydrogen-centric infrastructure that runs on market forces alone.
Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.04/hydrogen.html
Wired Magazine
SEARCH:
Issue 11.04 - April 2003
Pg 1 of 5 >>
Print, email, or fax
this article for free.
How Hydrogen Can Save America
The cost of oil dependence has never been so clear. What had long been largely an environmental issue has suddenly become a deadly serious strategic concern. Oil is an indulgence we can no longer afford, not just because it will run out or turn the planet into a sauna, but because it inexorably leads to global conflict. Enough. What we need is a massive, Apollo-scale effort to unlock the potential of hydrogen, a virtually unlimited source of power. The technology is at a tipping point. Terrorism provides political urgency. Consumers are ready for an alternative. From Detroit to Dallas, even the oil establishment is primed for change. We put a man on the moon in a decade; we can achieve energy independence just as fast. Here's how.
By Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall
Four decades ago, the United States faced a creeping menace to national security. The Soviet Union had lobbed the first satellite into space in 1957. Then, on April 12, 1961, Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin blasted off in Vostok 1 and became the first human in orbit.
President Kennedy understood that dominating space could mean the difference between a country able to defend itself and one at the mercy of its rivals. In a May 1961 address to Congress, he unveiled Apollo - a 10-year program of federal subsidies aimed at "landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth." The president announced the goal, Congress appropriated the funds, scientists and engineers put their noses to the launchpad, and - lo and behold - Neil Armstrong stepped on the lunar surface eight years later.
The country now faces a similarly dire threat: reliance on foreign oil. Just as President Kennedy responded to Soviet space superiority with a bold commitment, President Bush must respond to the clout of foreign oil by making energy independence a national priority. The president acknowledged as much by touting hydrogen fuel cells in January's State of the Union address. But the $1.2 billion he proposed is a pittance compared to what's needed. Only an Apollo-style effort to replace hydrocarbons with hydrogen can liberate the US to act as a world leader rather than a slave to its appetite for petroleum.
Tronic Studio
Tronic Studio
Money can do more than ease the pain of lost income. It can turn oil companies into the hydrogen economy's standard bearers.
Once upon a time, America's oil addiction was primarily an environmental issue. Hydrocarbons are dirty - befouling the air and water, possibly shifting the climate, and causing losses of biodiversity and precious coastal real estate. In those terms, the argument is largely political, one of environmental cleanliness against economic godliness. The horror of 9/11 changed that forever. Buried in the rubble of the World Trade Center was the myth that America can afford the dire costs of international oil politics. The price of the nation's reliance on crude has included '70s-style economic shocks, Desert Storm-like military adventures, strained relationships with less energy-hungry allies, and now terror on our shores.
George W. Bush arrived in Washington, DC, as a Texan with deep roots in the oil business. In the days following September 11, however, he transformed himself into the National Security President. Today, his ambition to protect the United States from emerging threats overshadows his industry ties. By throwing his power behind hydrogen, Bush would be gambling that, rather than harming Big Oil, he could revitalize the moribund industry. At the same time, he might win support among environmentalists, a group that has felt abandoned by this White House.
According to conventional wisdom, there are two ways for the US to reduce dependence on foreign oil: increase domestic production or decrease demand. Either way, though, the country would remain hostage to overseas producers. Consider the administration's ill-fated plan to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. For all the political wrangling and backlash, that area's productivity isn't likely to offset declining output from larger US oil fields, let alone increase the total supply from domestic sources. As for reducing demand, the levers available are small and ineffectual. The average car on the road is nine years old, so even dramatic increases in fuel efficiency today won't head off dire consequences tomorrow. Moreover, the dynamism at the heart of the US economy depends on energy. Growth and consumption are inextricably intertwined.
There's only one way to insulate the US from the corrosive power of oil, and that's to develop an alternative energy resource that's readily available domestically. Looking at the options - coal, natural gas, wind, water, solar, and nuclear - there's only one thing that can provide a wholesale substitute for foreign oil within a decade: hydrogen. Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries, burns twice as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion engine (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), and leaves only water behind. It's plentiful, clean, and - critically - capable of powering cars. Like manned space flight in 1961, hydrogen power is proven but primitive, a technology ripe for acceleration and then deployment. (For that, thank the Apollo program itself, which spurred the development of early fuel cells.)
Many observers view as inevitable the transition from an economy powered by fossil fuels to one based on hydrogen. But that view presupposes market forces that are only beginning to stir. Today, power from a fuel cell car engine costs 100 times more than power from its internal combustion counterpart; it'll take a lot of R&D to reduce that ratio. More daunting, the notion of fuel cell cars raises a chicken-and-egg question: How will a nationwide fueling infrastructure materialize to serve a fleet of vehicles that doesn't yet exist and will take decades to reach critical mass? Even hydrogen's boosters look forward to widespread adoption no sooner than 30 to 50 years from now. That's three to five times too long.
Adopting Kennedy's 10-year time frame may sound absurdly optimistic, but it's exactly the kick in the pants needed to jolt the US out of its crippling complacency when it comes to energy. A decade is long enough to make a serious difference but short enough that most Americans will see results within their lifetimes. The good news is that the technical challenges are issues of engineering rather than science. That means money can solve them.
How much money? How about the amount spent to put a man on the moon: $100 billion in today's dollars. With that investment, the nation could shift the balance of power from foreign oil producers to US energy consumers within a decade. By 2013, a third of all new cars sold could be hydrogen-powered, 15 percent of the nation's gas stations could pump hydrogen, and the US could get more than half its energy from domestic sources, putting independence within reach. All that's missing is a national commitment to make it happen.
It'd be easy - too easy - to misspend $100 billion. So the White House needs a plan. The strategy must take advantage of existing infrastructure and strengthen forces propelling the nation toward hydrogen while simultaneously removing obstacles. There are five objectives:
Peter Schwartz (peter_schwartz@gbn.com) is a partner in the Monitor Group and chair of Global Business Network, a scenario-planning firm. Doug Randall (doug_randall@gbn.com) is senior practitioner at GBN. Schwartz, a former futurist for Shell Oil, is an investor in two companies developing hydrogen power technologies.
Page 2 >>
How Hydrogen Can Save America (continued)
1. Solve the hydrogen fuel-tank problem.
2. Encourage mass production of fuel cell vehicles.
3. Convert the nation's fueling infrastructure to hydrogen.
4. Ramp up hydrogen production.
5. Mount a public campaign to sell the hydrogen economy.
By pursuing all five at once, the government can create a self-sustaining cycle of supply and demand that gains momentum over the coming decade and supplants the existing energy market in the decades that follow. Rather than waiting to build a hydrogen infrastructure from scratch, the US can start building the new fuel economy immediately by piggybacking on existing petroleum-based industries. Once customers are demanding and producers are supplying, there will be time to create a cleaner, more efficient hydrogen-centric infrastructure that runs on market forces alone.
1. Solve the hydrogen fuel-tank problem
The fuel cell, essentially a battery with a replaceable energy storage medium, isn't new. The basic ideas were in place by the mid-1800s, and the first proton-exchange membrane fuel cell - the type most practical for use in automobiles - was built by General Electric in the early '60s. Unlike a combustion engine, in which exploding gas pushes pistons, a fuel cell engine strips electrons from hydrogen and uses the resulting electrical current to power a motor. Then it combines the remaining hydrogen ions (protons) with oxygen to form water, the only byproduct. (A hybrid electrical engine is something else: a gasoline engine that powers a battery.)
In 1993, Canadian fuel cell manufacturer Ballard Power Systems began using the technology in buses, which could accommodate huge first-generation hydrogen engines and fuel tanks. The engines have since become smaller, but carrying enough hydrogen for 400 miles of driving - the range consumers generally expect - remains a challenge.
The Bush administration should spend $15 billion to solve this problem. The main question is whether to carry the fuel in gas, liquid, or solid form, each of which offers its own advantages and disadvantages. Until the industry settles on a standard, the market won't support mass production or ubiquitous filling stations.
The simplest option is gaseous hydrogen. The problem: It takes up a lot of room, so the gas must be compressed, but this requires a tank capable of withstanding high pressure. To carry enough fuel for 400 miles of travel, the tank would need to withstand 10,000 pounds per square inch - 50 times the pressure in a combustion engine's cylinders - and to keep it from bursting in an impact, it would need to tolerate 20,000 pounds per square inch. More research is needed to find materials strong enough to do the job yet light enough to carry and cheap enough to mass-produce.
Liquid hydrogen also has pros and cons. It exerts far less pressure on the tank, but it must be cooled to -423 degrees Fahrenheit at the pump and kept that way in the vehicle. This refrigeration demands a significant amount of energy, and insulating the tank can multiply its size. What's more, even with the best insulation, as much as 4 percent of the liquid evaporates daily, creating pressure that can only be relieved by bleeding off the vapor. As a result, a car left at the airport for two weeks would lose half its fuel. Scientists need to find a way to eliminate or utilize this boil-off.
In the long run, the most promising approach is to fill the tank with a solid material that soaks up hydrogen like a sponge at fill-up and releases it during drive time. Currently, the options include lithium hydride, sodium borohydride, and an emerging class of ultraporous nanotech materials. Unlike gaseous hydrogen, these substances can pack a lot of power into a small space of arbitrary shape. And unlike liquid hydrogen, they can be kept at room temperature. On the other hand, energy is required to infuse the solid medium with hydrogen, and in some cases very high temperatures are required to get the fuel back out, exacting a huge toll in efficiency. Also, filling the tank can take far more time than pumping gasoline. Government money could bridge the gap between today's experiments and a viable solution.
2. Encourage mass production of fuel cell vehicles
Once the storage problem has been solved, carmakers should be encouraged to gear up for mass production of fuel cell vehicles.
Detroit is already moving in that direction. To date, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and General Motors have spent roughly $2 billion developing fuel cell cars, buses, and trucks, with the first products due to hit the market this year. Ford chair William Clay Ford Jr. has proclaimed that fuel cells will "finally end the 100-year reign of the internal combustion engine."
To make sure the transition doesn't take another century, though, the Bush administration should allocate $10 billion to help automakers manufacture fuel cells efficiently and cheaply, either on their own (like GM) or through contracts with government-approved fuel cell developers. Funding should be contingent on the companies adhering to a strict schedule for bringing hydrogen-based vehicles to market (coordinated, of course, with the schedule for bringing fueling stations online).
A mandatory portion should be set aside for marketing. Detroit will face a tremendous hurdle of consumer acceptance, and it should take full advantage of Madison Avenue's skills to convince the public that fuel cell cars aren't just viable, but desirable. This isn't a fantasy. Toyota's Prius, the first mass-produced gasoline/electric hybrid car, has sold more than 100,000 units since its 1997 debut, proving that the public will embrace a radically different automobile.
3. Convert the fueling infrastructure to hydrogen
Of course, no one will drive a hydrogen-powered car off the lot unless they're confident they'll be able to get fuel when and where they need it. That's why the Bush administration must focus on infrastructure as well as vehicles.
Like the car companies, oil producers have already taken steps toward an oil-free future. Over the past 15 years, corporations like Shell and Exxon have ceded their leadership in oil production to a dozen state-owned enterprises in countries such as Venezuela, Brazil, and Norway. Instead they've focused on adding value farther down the supply chain by refining crude into gasoline and distributing and selling it through filling stations. They know they could play the same role in a hydrogen economy, which is why Shell and BP have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in hydrogen storage and production technology. Indeed, BP, formerly British Petroleum, has rebranded itself Beyond Petroleum.
Page 3 >>
Wired Magazine
SEARCH:
[Home][Archive][Subscribe][Advertise][Wired News][Animation]
Issue 11.04 - April 2003
|< << Pg 3 of 5 >>
Print, email, or fax
this article for free.
How Hydrogen Can Save America (continued)
The major oil companies are already extracting hydrogen from gasoline for industrial uses at nine refinery complexes throughout the United States. With a little push, these plants could serve as hubs for a nascent hydrogen-distribution network.
Converting filling stations is bound to cost billions of dollars over several decades. But it should cost relatively little to retrofit clusters of stations in proximity to both a hydrogen-producing refinery and a population center where fuel cell vehicles are sold. Oil companies could meet initial demand by trucking hydrogen from refineries to these stations. As the number of fuel cell vehicles on the road rises, stations that aren't served by refinery hubs could install processors, called reformers, that use electricity to extract hydrogen from gasoline or water. The White House should ask for $5 billion - roughly $30,000 for each of the nation's 176,000 filling stations - to get the ball rolling.
In the long run, a pipeline piggybacking on existing natural gas pipelines might deliver most of the fuel, either from high-volume plants or more widely distributed facilities. The administration should set aside $10 billion for incentives like interest-free loans to encourage oil companies to construct a national hydrogen pipeline. It might also grant five-to-ten-year monopoly rights to pipeline builders.
Hydrogen's fuel-efficiency offers immediate benefits to transportation companies that maintain their own vehicles and use them for limited, predictable distances. In fact, FedEx and UPS plan to phase in fuel-cell trucks over the next five years. The Bush administration should take advantage of this synergy between early adopters and the national interest by offering $10 billion in tax breaks to companies that invest in hydrogen-powered fleets. Also, in regions served by a refinery hub, $5 billion should be allocated for fuel cell police cars, ambulances, maintenance trucks, and other municipal vehicles. The military is another sensible target, since 60 percent of its logistics budget is devoted to transporting gasoline.
The critical need to build infrastructure along with vehicles brings to mind an earlier Apollo-like initiative: Eisenhower's National Defense Highway Act. As an officer during World War II, Ike struggled to move troops across the US and saw how Germany's highways conferred a military advantage. Once in the Oval Office, he called for $300 billion in today's dollars to build an interstate highway system. Funded by a gas tax, that program's dramatic success proved that national security can motivate federal infrastructure projects on a grand scale.
4. Ramp up hydrogen production
But where will the hydrogen come from? Ironically, while hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe, it rarely appears in its pure form. It must be extracted from substances that contain it, like fossil fuels and water. The problem is that the extraction itself requires power. Currently, the least expensive method is a process known as steam reforming, in which natural gas reacts chemically with steam to produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. Far preferable would be to use carbon-free resources like solar, wind, and hydropower to produce electricity for electrolysis, which splits water into hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen would make renewable energy practical, acting as a storage medium for the modest amounts of energy such resources produce. Wind power, especially, lends itself to this sort of use. This and other renewables should receive $10 billion as a seed for long-term development.
This suggests a role for a clean, efficient, and much neglected energy source: nuclear. Like the fuel cell, the nuclear generator is a technology ripe for exploitation. Unlike the solid-core reactors of the past, pebble-bed modular reactors such as the one at Koeberg, South Africa, don't get hot enough to risk melting down. Koeberg uses small graphite-covered uranium balls rather than plutonium rods, and the reactor's cooled by helium rather than water. This new design is so efficient, it might make nuclear competitive with coal and oil. In any event, the nuclear power industry is in dire need of research for everything, from generation to waste treatment. Thus, $10 billion should be allocated to developing and securing nuclear technology that can power the hydrogen revolution.
Nuclear power will serve as a stopgap, enabling the US to achieve energy independence while allowing wind, solar, and hydropower a chance to mature. Given the choice between powering the carbon-free hydrogen economy with fossil fuels or nuclear energy, even Greenpeace might embrace nuke plants as the lesser evil.
As all the various subsidies kindle a self-sustaining economy, they should be tapered and the money shunted to the other major power in the conversion from oil to hydrogen: electric utilities. Within a decade, outlays to power companies should be aimed at connecting hydrogen pipelines to the power stations.
5. Mount a Public Campaign To Sell the Hydrogen Economy
With a growing federal deficit and a stagnant economy, this might seem like a singularly bad time to unleash an immense tide of new subsidies. And let's be honest: Even framed as a national security issue, a $100 billion proposal won't go down easily on Capitol Hill or in Peoria. This is why the Bush administration's campaign to sell the hydrogen economy must be even more vigorous than its campaign to sell the war against Iraq.
Financially, the case is compelling. One hundred billion dollars is less than a quarter of what the federal government plans to spend annually on defense within five years. A 5 cent per gallon increase in the gasoline tax - less than the seasonal variation in gasoline prices - would pay for part of it. For the rest, the government could issue "H Bonds." Like Liberty Bonds during World Wars I and II, "securities for security" would give citizens a way to take part in the cause while providing an attractive investment. Like war bonds, they could be promoted by celebrities, sold by Boy and Girl Scouts, and paid for via payroll deduction plans.
Convincing Congress will take all the finesse the administration can muster, but some states are already pushing the hydrogen agenda with tax credits, research funding, and other policies to create jobs in fuel cell manufacture. "We want to collaborate with the federal government and industry to make California a leader in hydrogen," says Alan Lloyd, chair of California's Air Resources Board, an EPA suboffice in a state where SUVs sport SAVE THE EARTH bumper stickers. (The city of Los Angeles bought its first fuel-cell vehicle from Honda last December.) States that foster hydrogen technology companies will be rewarded with tax revenue from sales to Europe and Asia, which are also looking into it.
Page 4 >>
How Hydrogen Can Save America (continued)
Even before he sells the plan to Congress, the president will have to sell it to the oil and auto industries. After all, hydrogen power is a potent threat to their current business, and they own the fueling infrastructure and manufacturing capacity necessary to bring that power to market. The prospect of massive subsidies will help; these industries are squeezed between shrinking profits and rising costs. But the money can do more than relieve their pain. It can set them on a sustainable course for the future, turning the biggest obstacles to the hydrogen economy into its standard bearers.
Petroleum suppliers and auto manufacturers alike understand the need to disentangle their business models from crude. By most estimates, the worldwide oil supply has nearly stopped growing. Thanks to new discoveries, the total reserve increased by 56 percent between 1980 and 1990 but only 1.4 percent between 1990 and 2000. Pessimistic geologists argue that production will begin to decline as early as 2006, while optimists point at 2040. What's more, it's now clear that oil consumption is at least partly to blame for global warming, prompting ever-louder calls for alternatives. It shouldn't take much persuasion to convince the oil and car industries that the most profitable course is to adapt to hydrogen sooner with government money rather than later without.
The most important market over the next decade, of course, is the US consumer. The administration should allocate $25 billion to persuade Americans to buy fuel cell cars and invest in hydrogen technology. This budget would pay for a $2,000 tax rebate on vehicle purchases, and fund local incentives such as preferential parking, freeway lanes, and free registration for fuel cell cars. At least $1 billion a year - equal to Nike's 2001 advertising budget - should be devoted to public-service announcements, posters, lectures, contests, and other ways of sending the message that achieving energy independence through hydrogen is a patriotic duty.
There are good reasons to wonder whether any government initiative, even one that's critical to national security, can bring about such a radical change. Federal energy programs don't have much of a track record, and past efforts to promote hydrogen itself - after the oil crises of 1973, 1978, and 1980, for instance - have failed to take root.
These attempts foundered mainly because the US continued to have access to cheap oil. Energy independence briefly became top priority after OPEC raised prices from $3 to $12 per barrel between 1973 and 1975, but momentum dissipated as the crisis ended and prices fell. As a result, the political will to make tough energy decisions vanished. The threat to national security means that politics no longer stands in the way: Better to make hard choices today than send your children off to fight for oil tomorrow.
Earlier initiatives were also hampered by primitive technology. Today, however, fuel cells have reached the point where hydrogen is a credible substitute for oil. Outdoor-product maker Coleman recently released the first commercial fuel cell product, an emergency power generator for home use, and large fuel cells have been installed as backups in office buildings throughout the country. Hydrogen-powered buses are already operating in Toronto and Chicago, and soon will be in London, Madrid, and Hamburg. Iceland has embarked on an ambitious effort to convert its public transit and fishing fleets to hydrogen. The most encouraging sign is the investment by oil and car companies, not to mention venture capitalists.
If President Bush can implement this program, or something comparably aggressive, by 2013, all major car companies will sell fuel cell vehicles, and several new manufacturers will probably emerge to produce specialty hydrogen-powered items like sports cars and SUVs. Filling stations in the nation's six largest cities will carry hydrogen as well as gasoline; many will offer only the new fuel. Some refineries will be selling more hydrogen than gasoline, measured by both dollars and volume.
Imagine how the hydrogen economy will change geopolitics. OPEC will no longer be a factor in foreign policy. Relations with oil-producing nations will be based on common interests. The US will be free to promote democracy in countries like Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar will be dismantled and naval forces in the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf sent home.
Even at that point, the transition will be far from complete. It will take decades to get every conventional car off the road, and even longer before hydrogen can be mass-produced using clean energy. In the long run, automobile fuel cells themselves might be tied to the grid, making it possible for vehicles to feed power into the system rather than simply consume energy. That is, electrical meters might run backward some of the time. Futurist Amory Lovins envisions a peer-to-peer energy network in which spot power is distributed to users from the nearest source, be it a utility station or a station wagon. Such a system would make the grid more efficient and power less expensive. This cheaper energy could be sold in bulk to businesses looking to cut costs, creating further momentum for the new fuel system.
In time, US fuel cell and hydrogen-extraction technology will provide enormous opportunities for developing nations like China and India, which will be the fastest-growing consumers of energy in coming decades. Because they don't have an adequate petroleum-based infrastructure today, these nations will be quick to take full advantage of hydrogen, leapfrogging developed countries. Cheaper than oil, the new fuel will empower poor countries, reducing their trade deficits and security threats.
Page 5
How Hydrogen Can Save America (continued)
The stakes are higher today than they were in Sputnik's wake. Unlike space travel, energy independence bears directly on US self-determination. The dangerous turmoil in the Middle East, the growing national security budget, the promise of technology that needs only a financial push - all these things make this the right moment to launch an Apollo-scale commitment to hydrogen power. The fate of the republic depends on it.
10 YEARS OF ENERGY INNOVATION
1995
General Motors rolls out an electric car, the Impact (later refined into the EV1), at the Greater LA Auto Show.
GE introduces the H System, a natural gas-burning turbine that uses gas, steam, and heat-recovery technologies.
1997
In Japan, Toyota unveils the Prius, the first mass-produced gas-electric hybrid.
1999
Chicago spends $8 million installing solar panels in old industrial sites to light municipal buildings and parks.
2000
The South African company Eskom begins construction on the first pebble-bed modular reactor, a safer kind of nuclear plant.
2001
Clean Energy Systems develops a power plant that runs on natural gas and releases steam and carbon dioxide.
2002
Honda leases the first of five fuel cell cars to Los Angeles. The 80-horsepower FCX's only emission: water.
Ireland approves the world's largest offshore wind park, 200 turbines on a sandbank 15 miles long and a mile wide.
Chicago, February 27, 2002: Today, the Board of Directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moves the minute hand of the “Doomsday Clock,” the symbol of nuclear danger, from nine to seven minutes to midnight, the same setting at which the clock debuted 55 years ago. Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, this is the third time the hand has moved forward.We move the hands taking into account both negative and positive developments. The negative developments include too little progress on global nuclear disarmament; growing concerns about the security of nuclear weapons materials worldwide; the continuing U.S. preference for unilateral action rather than cooperative international diplomacy; U.S. abandonment of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and U.S. efforts to thwart the enactment of international agreements designed to constrain proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; the crisis between India and Pakistan; terrorist efforts to acquire and use nuclear and biological weapons; and the growing inequality between rich and poor around the world that increases the potential for violence and war. If it were not for the positive changes highlighted later in this statement, the hands of the clock might have moved closer still.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, founded by a group of World War II-era Manhattan Project scientists, has warned the world of nuclear dangers since 1945. The September 11 attacks, and the subsequent and probably unrelated use of the mail to deliver deadly anthrax spores, breached previous boundaries for terrorist acts and should have been a global wake-up call. Moving the clock’s hands at this time reflects our growing concern that the international community has hit the “snooze” button rather than respond to the alarm.
Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
http://www.thebulletin.org/media/current.html
Chicago, February 27, 2002: Today, the Board of Directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moves the minute hand of the “Doomsday Clock,” the symbol of nuclear danger, from nine to seven minutes to midnight, the same setting at which the clock debuted 55 years ago. Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, this is the third time the hand has moved forward.
We move the hands taking into account both negative and positive developments. The negative developments include too little progress on global nuclear disarmament; growing concerns about the security of nuclear weapons materials worldwide; the continuing U.S. preference for unilateral action rather than cooperative international diplomacy; U.S. abandonment of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and U.S. efforts to thwart the enactment of international agreements designed to constrain proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; the crisis between India and Pakistan; terrorist efforts to acquire and use nuclear and biological weapons; and the growing inequality between rich and poor around the world that increases the potential for violence and war. If it were not for the positive changes highlighted later in this statement, the hands of the clock might have moved closer still.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, founded by a group of World War II-era Manhattan Project scientists, has warned the world of nuclear dangers since 1945. The September 11 attacks, and the subsequent and probably unrelated use of the mail to deliver deadly anthrax spores, breached previous boundaries for terrorist acts and should have been a global wake-up call. Moving the clock’s hands at this time reflects our growing concern that the international community has hit the “snooze” button rather than respond to the alarm.
Troubling trends and missed opportunities
More than 31,000 nuclear weapons are still maintained by the eight known nuclear powers, a decrease of only 3,000 since 1998. Ninety-five percent of these weapons are in the United States and Russia, and more than 16,000 are operationally deployed. Even if the United States and Russia complete their recently announced arms reductions over the next 10 years, they will continue to target thousands of nuclear weapons against each other.
Furthermore, many if not most of the U.S. warheads removed from the active stockpile will be placed in storage (along with some 5,000 warheads already held in reserve) rather than dismantled, for the express purpose of re-deploying them in some future contingency. As a result, the total U.S. stockpile will remain at more than 10,000 warheads for the foreseeable future. Russia, on the other hand, seeks a verifiable, binding agreement that would ensure retired U.S. and Russian weapons are actually destroyed, a position we support.
Despite a campaign promise to re-think nuclear policy, the Bush administration has taken no steps to significantly alter nuclear targeting doctrine or reduce the day-to-day alert status of U.S. nuclear forces. If Russia is no longer an adversary, what is the rationale for retaining the ability to incinerate more than 2,000 Russian targets in as little as 30 minutes (or at all)?
Meanwhile, the U.S. national weapons laboratories, with the support of some in Congress, are hard at work refining existing warheads and designing entirely new weapons, with a special emphasis on those able to attack and destroy hardened and deeply buried targets. And to ensure that such new designs can be tested, the U.S. administration seeks to shorten the time required to resume testing to as little as twelve months—a move that can only encourage other countries, including India, Pakistan, and China, to consider resuming testing. Although the United States has not conducted a full-scale test since 1992—and the administration says it has no plans to resume testing at this time—it refuses to recognize the overwhelming international support for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and refuses to participate in international meetings to discuss implementing the treaty. Should the required signatories, including India and Pakistan, fail to ratify the CTBT, thus jeopardizing its entry into force, the world will lose an essential tool in halting the further development and spread of nuclear weapons.
Russia and the United States continue to maintain enormous stockpiles of fissile material. Russia has more than 1,000 metric tons of weapon-grade uranium and about 140 metric tons of weapon-grade plutonium, and the United States has nearly 750 metric tons of weapon-grade uranium and 85 metric tons of weapon-grade plutonium. (Just 55 pounds—25 kilograms—of weapon-grade uranium, or 17.6 pounds of plutonium—8 kilograms—are needed to construct a rudimentary nuclear weapon.)
Fortunately, of the hundreds of attempted smuggling transactions involving radioactive materials that have been thwarted since 1991, the vast majority involved materials that were not weapons usable or were of insufficient quantity to construct a nuclear weapon. Only 18 of these cases involved the theft of weapon-grade uranium or plutonium from facilities in the former Soviet Union. At the same time, Al Qaeda operatives were actively seeking to acquire radioactive materials to fashion either a crude nuclear weapon or a radiological dispersion device, commonly known as a “dirty bomb.”
The increase in the number of smuggling attempts in recent years serves as a clear warning that surplus nuclear weapons and weapons materials may not be entirely secure. Yet since 1991, successive U.S. and Russian administrations have failed to push for either a full inventory of weapons and materials, or for measures to confirm their destruction. As a result, it is now essentially impossible to verify whether all materials in the United States and Russia are accounted for or whether all weapons are secure. This squandered opportunity has enormous security ramifications.
The U.S. administration’s decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty is a matter of great concern. The administration’s rationale—that the treaty is a relic that endangers U.S. security interests—is disingenuous. Regrettably, the United States was unwilling to consider any compromise that would have preserved the basic framework of the treaty, and therefore blocked pursuit of a compromise that would have allowed additional testing but maintained some limits on defenses. Abandoning the treaty will have serious repercussions for years to come.
The crisis between India and Pakistan, touched off by a December 13 terrorist attack on the Indian parliament, marks the closest two states have come to nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis. When the hands of the clock were moved forward in 1998, to nine minutes to midnight, it was in part in anticipation of just this sort of scenario.
Nuclear proliferation continues to pose dangers, both regionally and internationally. Of the countries most often described as seeking nuclear weapons and/or ballistic missiles— Iraq, Iran, and North Korea—North Korea has repeatedly signaled its willingness to turn back, including a decision last year to extend its unilateral moratorium on missile flight tests through 2003. Yet the U.S. administration has abandoned negotiations with that country, and in his State of the Union message, President George W. Bush lumped all three countries together as an “axis of evil,” warning that, “The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.” The preference implicit in this statement for preemptive force over diplomacy, and for unilateral action rather than international cooperation, is likely to complicate efforts to defeat terrorism and strengthen global security.
The confluence of the rise of extremists who sacrifice their lives for their cause combined with weapons of mass destruction is an especially worrisome development. So too is the increased awareness since September 11 that terrorists need not manufacture or purchase fissile materials to fashion a crude nuclear weapon or release dangerous amounts of radiation. They need only attack poorly guarded nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons facilities, which contain sizable quantities of these materials. Significantly, President Bush acknowledged on January 29, 2002, that diagrams of U.S. nuclear power plants were found among Al Qaeda materials in Afghanistan.
When resetting the clock we have often noted that the growing disparities between rich and poor increase the potential for violence and war. Poverty and repression breed anger and desperation. Charismatic leaders with easy answers prey on the dispossessed and disaffected, channeling their anger into dangerous and destructive activities. The global community must recognize these facts and do much more to address them. The success of the war on terrorism depends not only on disrupting and destroying terrorist organizations, but also on eradicating the conditions that give rise to terror.
We therefore fully support the statement circulated by Bulletin sponsor John Polanyi and signed by 110 Nobel laureates last December, which reads in part, “The only hope for the future lies in cooperative international action, legitimized by democracy. . . . To survive in the world we have transformed, we must learn to think in a new way.”
Some welcome developments
At the same time, we want to recognize some welcome trends. Since we last set the clock in 1998, the 187 governments party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, including the major nuclear powers, agreed to a comprehensive set of commitments and measures to enhance nonproliferation and fulfill long-standing nuclear disarmament pledges. These agreements were rightly heralded as a political breakthrough, but the real test will be in how seriously the nuclear powers take their obligations to implement the practical steps to which they have agreed. In this regard, we welcome France’s dismantling of its Pacific nuclear test site and military reprocessing facilities and commend Britain’s research program on verifying multilateral reductions in nuclear weapons as early steps in the right direction.
U.S. funding and technical assistance continues to make significant and cost-effective contributions to international security by working to ensure that Russian nuclear weapons are dismantled, and that nuclear materials and nuclear expertise do not leave Russia. Much remains to be done, however. After initially questioning the value of these cooperative programs, the Bush administration now seeks to increase their funding.
Since 2000, Russia has urged the United States to agree to reductions in the two countries’ arsenals to 1,500 warheads each. President Bush’s announcement in November 2001 that U.S. “operationally deployed strategic warheads” would be reduced to between 1,700 to 2,200 by 2012—an intention reaffirmed in the administration’s Nuclear Posture Review in January—is positive news. It is also the first major commitment to reducing nuclear weapons made by either the United States or Russia since 1997. Although there are serious questions about how permanent these reductions will be, and how long they will take to enact, they are nevertheless an important step away from the grotesque levels of the Cold War.
What it would take to turn back the clock
As a first step in moving toward a safer world, we urge the United States and Russia to commit to reduce their nuclear arsenals to no more than 1,000 warheads each by the end of the decade. Each side should be free to choose its own means for achieving this goal, but both should commit, in writing, to transparency and verification provisions to ensure that the cuts are carried out and the delivery systems and warheads dismantled. Both countries should commit to storing and disposing of the resulting fissile material in a manner that makes the reductions irreversible. In addition, each side should commit to destroying at least half of the inactive weapons it currently stores within five years, and commit to destroying them all within 10 years.
These reductions must include tactical nuclear weapons as well. Significantly, the Bush administration’s Nuclear Posture Review calls for studying whether the navy should be permitted to retire its nuclear-armed cruise missiles. If these weapons were retired, only about 150 air force bombs stored in seven European countries would remain in the U.S. operational tactical stockpile. We urge the swift retirement and destruction of all tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, and strongly encourage all states with nuclear weapons to begin negotiations to eliminate these weapons worldwide.
We also urge the United States and Russia to finally recognize the end of the Cold War by abandoning the practice of maintaining thousands of nuclear weapons on high alert, ready to be fired within minutes. This practice, born of fear and uncertainty during the Cold War, is a dangerous anachronism.
Significantly greater funding must be provided to secure and safeguard nuclear weapons and weapons materials in Russia, the United States, and elsewhere. For example, the current level of U.S. funding to assist Russia with such efforts is less than a third of the $3 billion annual expenditure recommended by an Energy Department task force last year. If weapons materials and expertise are not more tightly controlled, no city in the world will be safe from nuclear attack.
A Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty must be placed back on the international arms control agenda. Every year that passes without a verifiable means of stopping the production worldwide of nuclear weapons materials makes the task of constraining nuclear proliferation more difficult. In addition, as part of such an agreement, all states with fissile material inventories should declare their current holdings and submit to an international verification and transparency regime that would continuously monitor surplus inventories and develop safe, effective, and permanent disposal options.
The United States should reconsider its plans to walk away from the ABM Treaty in June. As the U.S. intelligence community recently concluded, ballistic missiles are neither the most likely nor the most destructive threat facing the United States.
Other measures that would increase global stability include a ban on the deployment of space-based weapons, whether designed to damage or disrupt satellites or to attack targets on the ground or in the air; full adherence by all parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention; and the resumption of negotiations on a verification protocol for the Biological Weapons Convention. Stronger international support for the global movement to limit the spread of small arms and to ban land mines, which each year maim or kill tens of thousands of people, most of them innocent civilians, would also be a welcome and necessary development.
The clock is ticking.
Hey there's a Metaverse under construction over at SourceForge.
It's actually a direct result of some of the neat ideas going on over at Freality.
In honor of the Dreamworks rendition of The Time Machine opening this month, Popular Science has taken an updated look at the feasibility (or lack thereof) of Time Travel.
I still don't really understand it completely, but something pretty cool happened over in Australia with regard to the hypothetical possibility of being able to someday transport matter instantaneously.
See the New Scientist article by :
Quantum Teleportation Technique Improved.
Scientists have stumbled upon a type of matter considered previously undiscovered in the universe.
 | See: Quark stars point to new matter. |
A thinker by Moreover's Nick Denton about the emergence of weblogs and their increasingly important role as part of the reliable media: The atrocity through the eyes of weblogs.
