US Congress makes positive step towards sustainability

The Middelgrunden Wind Turbine Cooperative in Copenhagen, DenmarkThe Bali talks about climate change are progressing reasonably well, with Australia the 37th country to agree to cut emissions. However, the elephant in the room is of course the US and Canada administrations, who have resisted negotiations. Although some US officials don’t want to join the protocol, others are starting to do something about it. This week Congress is discussing a revolutionary new Energy bill that really starts to look at a sustainable future.

It would repeal $21 Billion in oil subsidies to spend on alternative energies, increase minimum mpg for cars, include incentives for efficiency and new technology as well as pledging renewable electricity production to be 15% by 2020. This bill will inevitably be vetoed by President Bush, or filibustered by the Republican minority. All the same, the US Congress deserves recognition and support for thinking constructively about increasing efficiency and promoting solutions to this problem.

UPDATE: Congress has passed the bill 232-181. The bill moves to the Senate for further discussion. President Bush has pledged to veto it.

[image by Morten Mitchell Larod]

Charles Stross: we may never colonise space

Charles Stross’ latest book is probably going to be good enough to get him a record fifth consecutive Hugo nominationAs he closes in on the deadline for his latest book, science fiction author John Scalzi has been including guest posts on his blog Whatever, by a different author each day. A few days ago he posted a great article on space by Charles Stross:

“Optimistic projects suggest that it should be possible, with the low cost rockets currently under development, to maintain a Lunar presence for a transportation cost of roughly $15,000 per kilogram. Some extreme projections suggest that if the cost can be cut to roughly triple the cost of fuel and oxidizer (meaning, the spacecraft concerned will be both largely reusable and very cheap) then we might even get as low as $165/kilogram to the lunar surface. At that price, sending a 100Kg astronaut to Moon Base One looks as if it ought to cost not much more than a first-class return air fare from the UK to New Zealand … except that such a price estimate is hogwash. We primates have certain failure modes, and one of them that must not be underestimated is our tendency to irreversibly malfunction when exposed to climactic extremes of temperature, pressure, and partial pressure of oxygen.

While the amount of oxygen, water, and food a human consumes per day doesn’t sound all that serious — it probably totals roughly ten kilograms, if you economize and recycle the washing-up water — the amount of parasitic weight you need to keep the monkey from blowing out is measured in tons. A Russian Orlan-M space suit (which, some would say, is better than anything NASA has come up with over the years — take heed of the pre-breathe time requirements!) weighs 112 kilograms, which pretty much puts a floor on our infrastructure requirements. An actual habitat would need to mass a whole lot more. Even at $165/kilogram, that’s going to add up to a very hefty excess baggage charge on that notional first class air fare to New Zealand — and I think the $165/kg figure is in any case highly unrealistic; even the authors of the article I cited thought $2000/kg was a bit more reasonable.”

I encourage everyone to read the whole thing (and the other insightful posts by Scalzi’s guest writers) and also to check out Stross’s Halting State, which left me highly impressed.

[link and image via Whatever]

Cliquey Wiki – Wikipedia inner circle outed?

Wikipedia_screenshot Reports suggest that an over-enthusiastic wielding of the banhammer by a high-ranking Wikipedia admin has blown the lid off of a secret internal mailing list used to maintain the control of a central cabal of editors.

I don’t find the existence of website power-cliques particularly surprising; I can’t think of one forum or blog I’ve posted on where an ecosystem of rank and authority hasn’t emerged from the community. In most cases, nor do I find it particularly worrying.

Wikipedia is a special case, however – simply by dint of its claims to impartiality and universal editorial access – and it will be interesting to see what comes of this story. I’m also taking it with a pinch of salt – while it’s doubtless based on fact, there are a lot of folk with axes to grind against Wikipedia for various reasons, and most reports about it are at least as biased as the average Wiki article. And therein lies the crux of the issue, which The Register’s article sums up nicely:

“If you take Wikipedia as seriously as it takes itself, this is a huge problem.”

I use Wikipedia quite a bit, but never as a primary source, and never to research issues or persons of a controversial nature. What about you – is Wikipedia a valuable resource or a waste of bandwidth? [Image by Leonard Low]

[tags]Wikipedia, editing, clique, credibility[/tags]

Blowing things up from far away

rail-guns-navy Everyone knows spaceships will have laser guns that go “pew, pew” and kill the fat guy in the x-wing.  But until then, we’ll have to make do with blowing the crap out of stuff at 220 miles with the most powerful rail gun ever.  The 32-megajoule Electric Laboratory Rail Gun (a name only a military bureaucrat could love) is four times more powerful than the previously-most-powerful rail gun, capable of accelerating steel slugs to Mach 7.

The scary thing is, this model is only half as powerful as the specifications given by the Navy – they want a 64 megajoule weapon.  BAE’s got a ways to go, the current model only lasts a few shots before blowing itself out of alignment.

(story and image via DailyTech)

Presenting the fact and fiction of tomorrow since 2001