Don't kill those horses

In response to the July 7 article "Proposal to euthanize wild horses spurs debate:" Come on, can't the U.S. Bureau of Land Management come up with a better way of dealing with wild animals than killing them? Maybe they should try neutering half the males to limit the reproduction of these troublesome wild animals.

The poor ranchers are upset about wild animals grazing on public lands. Would it cost the agency any more money to neuter these horses, or is it really cheaper for them to round them up, maintain them and then eventually euthanize and dispose of them?

I can understand why they should be kept at a certain number. They have few natural enemies to help keep them in check. But killing them is ridiculous when there are so many other options.

Raelyn McCarthy, Lebanon

A lack of coverage

I was very pleased to see the letter from Tom Owen of Lebanon.

Everyone at the dedication ceremony seemed very impressed with the big turnout, inspiring service and the beautiful memorial. One of my relatives, who came from out of town, was very touched to see Vietnam veterans getting some respect and humor.

So, like Mr. Owen, I expected to see pictures and an article in the Albany Democrat-Herald. I couldn't believe there were all those pictures of the Timber Carnival and nothing about the Scio war memorial. I looked through the paper a couple of times to see if I had missed the picture and article. I told my family I couldn't believe there was no coverage. My family suggested I better drive to Scio for their paper.

I think the Democrat-Herald should apologize for the lack of coverage.

Marilyn Mann, Scio

How gases actually work

I'm sure Robert Waterhouse (Mailbag, July 1) is a very good activist but it certainly appears he has fallen under the influence of a common misperception. While it is true that carbon dioxide and other gases are called "greenhouse" gases, their naming as such does not bestow those properties. Yes, these gases absorb infrared radiation, but they also re-radiate that energy back to their environment. Gas molecules continuously exchange energy with their environment, unless they are artificially constrained. A brief thought experiment should allow Mr. Waterhouse to perceive the difference.

Let's say you have a standard pickup, without canopy, available for our experiment. Now, let's park it out in the sun with the windows rolled up. After an hour we return and note the temperature, first in the bed of the pickup. We find that it's only a few degrees above ambient (mostly due to heat radiating off the hot bed). Then we open the door of the cab and note that the interior temperature is well over 100 degrees.

Now, the global warming bunch would claim that's because there is a high level of CO2 in the cab, but we know it's only because the windows were shut and heated air could not flow away. Physical constraint of heated air is the "greenhouse" process, not IR absorption by atmospheric gases.

Mr. Waterhouse notes, in regard to greenhouse gases, that "we neglect them at our peril." I would suggest that we focus on them at our peril, as we are well into a cooling period (note the ENSO and PDO cycles are in their cool phases and that Solar Cycle 24 is a total bust so far). Crippling our energy supply when we are facing multiple decades of cooling is very bad policy; cold is much more inimical to people and agriculture than warmth.

Oh, and btw, I also am a professional engineer, and a chemist.

Michael Schwarze, Albany

Power from hydrogen

In the article, "L.A. gets hydrogen fuel pump," city councilman Bill Rosendahl stated, "This is the car of the future."

In the first ship I was on in the Navy, my work station was in the engine room of a destroyer, which was steam-powered. Electricity was created by a steam-powered turbine coupled to an electric generator.

After I got out the Navy, I worked in the automotive field for a number of years.

During the Gulf War of 1990 and 1991, when the United State was concerned that Iraq might impede the flow of oil to the West, I pondered the idea of a compact automobile with an aluminum frame and fiberglass body that would have a low horse-powered reciprocating engine, using hydrogen for fuel.

The engine would be mechanically attached to an electric generator. The electric generator would supply electricity to an electric motor, which would be attached to an automatic transmission for a frontwheel-drive vehicle.

If the power company shut off electricity to a person's home, the vehicle could be plugged into the house, and the vehicle could run electricity to the house until the power was restored. Also, a person could take this vehicle camping, and use the electricity to power an electric coffee maker, microwave, electric griddle, etc. I think this would be the automobile of the future.

In the book, "Fuel from Water,"

a person could build his own

chemical-reaction hydrogen generator, or use solar power to generate hydrogen for his vehicle.

Edgar Hahn Jr., Albany

Burn fat, not oil

I'm sick and tired of the political blame game concerning energy production. There is more than enough blame to go around, and guilt on all sides.

Democrats block more drilling; Republicans block higher fuel mileage standards. Democrats block nuclear energy; Republicans block investment in renewable energy research by giving the government funds or incentives. Big oil hasn't drilled in the areas already leased to them. Guess why. Democrats don't want more refineries and Republicans don't want reasonable government regulation, which would increase insulation standards.

Now let's look at our rotten, spoiled brat of a culture. Our young people can't walk a few blocks for a soda pop. It requires a 350-horsepower, two-ton sport utility vehicle to carry their 200-pound carcass a few blocks.

I get frustrated when I see people making two, three or more trips to the local mini mart in huge vehicles, or even small ones, for a few unnecessary items. It's sad when we replace our brains with our arrogance.

Our politicians have wasted 35 years arguing about an oncoming crisis and done nothing. Now it's here and too late to prevent it. With energy consumption and demand increasing around the world, increased petroleum and coal production are only temporary solutions. They will be depleted and won't be back.

Renewables such as wind and solar will be more valuable in the long run. Why have we wasted more than three decades dragging our feet on developing these resources?

Conservation is no longer going to be an option. It will be an unwelcome choice we have denied. It's an old lifestyle reborn. It will be, for many, an unwanted blessing. Instead of petroleum, some might burn some fat. It's not all bad.

Doyle Winston, Brownsville