A number I'd like to know...



Sheldon Brown wrote:
>
> qtq wrote:
>
> > do cyclists drive SUVs,
>
> Well...last weekend I went for a delightful 40 mile ride on my Quickbeam
> fixed gear, in the countryside west of Boston...Lexington, Concord,
> Carlisle, Sudbury, Weston then back home to Newton.
>
> It was a gorgeous day, some of the leaves are just beginning to turn. I
> was on beautiful winding roads, well paved with rolling terrain,
> listening to Das Rheingold on my iPod and having an absolutely
> delightful time...but, as I was riding along in this cheerful mode, I
> couldn't help but be surprised at how many big SUVs drove past me with
> shiny clean high-end mountain bikes on them...they didn't know what they
> were missing.
>
> Sheldon "Bemused" Brown

So you circled home well before reaching the hill on Rt 111 just east of
Harvard, MA.
In the 70's, before I owned a bike, I lived below that hill and always
wondered how long I'd have to train before I'd be able to climb it
without stopping.

I bet your ride _was_ gorgeous; I used to enjoy driving through Sudbury
and points south when taking the scenic route to Rt. 9 from Boxboro.

Michael
 
Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> But all this makes some notable tilting assumptions: the cost for gas
> is cheaper in the US. The cyclist cannot live on bread alone, and will
> likely go for Gatorade and Powerbars, which are considerably more
> expensive per calorie (think of the cyclist's mouth as having a
> "PREMIUM FUEL ONLY" sticker beside it, and also think of the results
> if you actually tried to eat 3.5 loaves of bread in one day).

The cheapest way to get calories is probably bulk sugar; sugar is in the
order of a dollar a kilo, which will supply 18 MJ of energy (4000
calories). Mixing sugar and salt into say a 4%/0.2% solution will make it
taste vaguely like gatorade (add some flavoring too, maybe), and keep you
well hydrated.

What I should do is mix up weighed sachets of the stuff, calibrated so that
I can drop one into a water bottle and fill it up, shake, and have it come
out fine. Work out how many calories you're burning (each litre should
supply 160 kcal or so) and drink/pee to your heart's content.


--
to email me, run my email address through /usr/bin/caesar
(or rotate by -4)
 
Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote in news:rcousine-
[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] (Andrew Martin) wrote:
>>
>> >I read a stat a few years back:
>> >
>> >A _good_ fuel economy car gets ~50mi/gallon
>> >If you take the energy in 1 gallon in gasoline, and translate it into
>> >food energy...the average bike rider would get ~12500mi/"gallon".
>> Yeah, but the taste... blech!
> And there's one other problem. Compared to any foodstuff, gasoline is
> really cheap and energy-dense (which is, after all, why we keep
> converting it into energy...).

In addition, if you're in Australia, the petrol is cheaper than the beer
and contains more ethanol.

--
to email me, run my email address through /usr/bin/caesar
(or rotate by -4)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> writes:

> Suppose that bicycles were totally banned, and that every mile of
> bicycle travel was then replaced by an automobile trip.

I'd take the bus, or walk. I'd get a wheelbarrow if I had to.
Anything but take up driving.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
gwhite <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Talk of "energy conservation" is often also associated with the concept of
> energy efficiency. That is, if some task is done with less energy consumption
> than it had previously required, then the process is considered to be more
> "energy efficient." Unfortunately, all evidence points to the fact that greater
> efficiency leads to greater energy consumption, an entirely non-intuitive
> result!
>
> http://technology.open.ac.uk/eeru/staff/horace/kbpotl.htm

I see that you have graduated from a tinfoil beanie to a tinfoil
mortarboard.

Fossil fuels are a finite and non-replenishable commodity. All
prospective replacement sources of energy amount to a smaller total
than is currently consumed as fossil fuels. So we are presented with
one of two options:

1) increase our energy-efficiency, thereby fitting a given amount of
economic activity into a smaller amount of total energy consumption,
or

2) suffer an irretrievable economic collapse when the cheaply
accessible fossil fuels are burned up.

You seem to be in favor of speeding directly towards option #2. Or
maybe, like former Interior Secretary James Watt, you reckon Jesus is
gonna come back soon, so we'd better pump all the oil and strip-mine
all the coal on the double.

Growth in the rate of energy use is a result of a capitalistic focus
on continuously accelerating econimic growth, not a result of people's
efforts to reduce consumption.

Chalo Colina
 
"Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Sheldon Brown wrote:
> :: Suppose that bicycles were totally banned, and that every mile of
> :: bicycle travel was then replaced by an automobile trip.
> ::
> :: How many additional gallons of gasoline per day or per year would
> :: then be consumed?
> ::
> :: Anybody have a reasonable estimate?
>
> In my case, zero. I don't ride my bike as a replacement for driving my car.
> Bike riding, for me, is for fun and fitness.
>
> So, likely, to get reasonable numbers, you'd have to look at those who
> commute by bike, not recreational folks are racers.

I don't think most people have thought this through very carefully.

Take yourself for instance. If you were not riding your bike for that
amount of time every day, you would be doing SOMETHING for that same
amount of time.

As others have mentioned, you might go to the gym as a replacement.
But let's say you decide to give up exercising altogether. So now
what are you doing during that time? Shopping, running errands,
visiting friends or family, taking kids to soccer or music lessons,
watching TV, gardening, ... ?

Notice how many of those activities are likely to involve driving.
It's just a fact that the average American's free time includes a lot
of automobile driving. So on average, less recreational bicycling
equals more free time equals more driving.

Of course, *how much* more driving, and whether on average additional
driving mileage would equal the bicycling mileage is a more difficult
question.

--Brent

bhugh [at] mwsc.edu
 
"James Cassatt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Interesting question!
>
> Since April, I have been commuting on average 3 out of 5 days a week.
..... At two bucks a gallon that is about $180.00 saved. Have I
> saved any money? Probably not. One set of new tires, new chain and
> cassette, etc. If I have the bike overhauled by the local lbs that is
> $200.00 right there. ...
>
> Have I saved money? Probably not. Do I feel great? You bet.
>
The big bucks kick in when you can avoid a vehicle entirely.
Going from 2 cars to 1 starts saving appreciable money.
$400 a month in car payments = $4800
$800 a year in insurance
4 oil changes = $120
That's over $5500 right there, even without parking, maintenance repairs,
and the cost of bumper stickers.
Of course, everybody will have a different version of this calculation (this
thread has come up before!)

On a more local level, my daughter was taking the city bus to high school, 2
* $1.75 = $3.50 a day, $17.50 a week.
This money was, of course, paid by her parents.
She started biking, and while this didn't do much for her social status she
was "scamming" us for $3.50 a day.
(I pretended not to notice, and she's picked up a pretty decent bike habit
for a suburban17 year old, when social pressure is pretty severe.)
 
Chalo wrote:
>
> gwhite <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Talk of "energy conservation" is often also associated with the concept of
> > energy efficiency. That is, if some task is done with less energy consumption
> > than it had previously required, then the process is considered to be more
> > "energy efficient." Unfortunately, all evidence points to the fact that greater
> > efficiency leads to greater energy consumption, an entirely non-intuitive
> > result!
> >
> > http://technology.open.ac.uk/eeru/staff/horace/kbpotl.htm
>
> I see that you have graduated from a tinfoil beanie to a tinfoil
> mortarboard.

Another way of saying this is that you have no argument of substance.

> Fossil fuels are a finite and non-replenishable commodity.

So? So were stone hand axes in the stone age.

> All
> prospective replacement sources of energy amount to a smaller total
> than is currently consumed as fossil fuels.

This is a false statement. I suspect you know it is false, which in that case
would make you a liar.

Breeder reactors could produce plenty of energy -- till the sun turns into a
little red dot. You ignore it because you don't like radioactivity. No one
does, but when it comes to a choice between surviving and "burying" radioactive
waste, I think the choice people make will be clear. Fusion may be made to work
someday, and could then supplant breeder reactors. The sooner a greater
percentage of energy is produced by nuclear reactions, the sooner we diminish
the burn rate of fossil fuels. You know, the same fossil fuels accused of
contributing to global warming when burned. You have a fantasy that there is "a
solution" to the energy problem. There is no solution, there is only tradeoffs.

> So we are presented with
> one of two options:
>
> 1) increase our energy-efficiency, thereby fitting a given amount of
> economic activity into a smaller amount of total energy consumption,
> or

Of course, you ignore the basic empirical truth: increased energy efficiency has
led to more energy use, not less. You goal is fundamentally to *force* people
to be poor, or even to deny them coming into existance in the first place. You
are an arrogant wannabe dictator.

> 2) suffer an irretrievable economic collapse when the cheaply
> accessible fossil fuels are burned up.

This is based on your previous false statement.

> You seem to be in favor of speeding directly towards option #2.

"If you don't have an argument, make one up." I never said/wrote any such
thing. I simply presented the facts, referenced an academic paper which itself
provided a list of citations, and made no comment regarding "intent." Intent is
in the domain of your arrogance.

> Or
> maybe, like former Interior Secretary James Watt, you reckon Jesus is
> gonna come back soon, so we'd better pump all the oil and strip-mine
> all the coal on the double.

This is rambling nonsense that likely has something to do with some goofy
partisan beliefs of your own, not mine.

> Growth in the rate of energy use is a result of a capitalistic focus
> on continuously accelerating econimic growth, not a result of people's
> efforts to reduce consumption.

You live in a fantasy land and continue to ignore the basic macroeconomic
argument because it is impossible to resolve the truth with your wishful
thinking. You ignore reality and simply put your hopes (sophistry) about how
you wish the world would be, in place of how it actually is. You have a
religious belief that you (and other elites) can design the intent, purpose, and
results of some ethereal "human society." There is no such thing. There is
simply a lot of people, that is all. You are so arrogant -- you think you know
what is "right" for all the people of the world, and thus to *dictate* how
"things" should be done. Another petty tyrant is born.
 
gwhite <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > All
> > prospective replacement sources of energy amount to a smaller total
> > than is currently consumed as fossil fuels.
>
> This is a false statement. I suspect you know it is false, which in that case
> would make you a liar.
>
> Breeder reactors could produce plenty of energy -- till the sun turns into a
> little red dot. You ignore it because you don't like radioactivity.

I hardly think that nuclear reactors could replace _all_ fossil-fueled
power plants, while adding enough extra generating capacity to power
all transportation. In theory it might be possible, but in practice I
don't think having such a density of nuke plants would be feasible
without tolerating many horrible accidents and subsequent permanent
loss of usable land.

I don't think anybody would want to live in a land that consumes as
much energy as ours but generates it all with nukes. Even if we were
to switch from fossil fuels to 100% nuclear energy sources, it would
be much more tenable to make that energy work harder for us (through
increased efficiency), so we wouldn't have to make as much.

> Of course, you ignore the basic empirical truth: increased energy efficiency has
> led to more energy use, not less. You goal is fundamentally to *force* people
> to be poor, or even to deny them coming into existance in the first place. You
> are an arrogant wannabe dictator.

You are assigning a false cause (energy efficiency) to the observed
effect (increased gross energy usage). The real cause of increasing
energy usage is growing population and a growing overall level of
economic activity. Energy conservation measures can only offset these
effects, not exaggerate them.

You obviously see this issue from an irrational quasi-religious
standpoint, and I expect that there is no point discussing the matter
any further with you. Less is not more, and saving something is not
the same as wasting it, no matter what pseudoscientific claptrap you
can point to.

Chalo Colina
 
"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> gwhite <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Chalo wrote:
> > >
> > > All
> > > prospective replacement sources of energy amount to a
smaller total
> > > than is currently consumed as fossil fuels.
> >
> > This is a false statement. I suspect you know it is false,
which in that case
> > would make you a liar.
> >
> > Breeder reactors could produce plenty of energy -- till the
sun turns into a
> > little red dot. You ignore it because you don't like
radioactivity.
>
> I hardly think that nuclear reactors could replace _all_
fossil-fueled
> power plants, while adding enough extra generating capacity to
power
> all transportation. In theory it might be possible, but in
practice I
> don't think having such a density of nuke plants would be
feasible
> without tolerating many horrible accidents and subsequent
permanent
> loss of usable land.
>
> I don't think anybody would want to live in a land that
consumes as
> much energy as ours but generates it all with nukes. Even if
we were
> to switch from fossil fuels to 100% nuclear energy sources, it
would
> be much more tenable to make that energy work harder for us
(through
> increased efficiency), so we wouldn't have to make as much.
>
> > Of course, you ignore the basic empirical truth: increased
energy efficiency has
> > led to more energy use, not less. You goal is fundamentally
to *force* people
> > to be poor, or even to deny them coming into existance in the
first place. You
> > are an arrogant wannabe dictator.
>
> You are assigning a false cause (energy efficiency) to the
observed
> effect (increased gross energy usage). The real cause of
increasing
> energy usage is growing population and a growing overall level
of
> economic activity. Energy conservation measures can only
offset these
> effects, not exaggerate them.

China is the best example of this. It is true that second and
third-world countries typically generate electricity with some of
the dirtiest methods, like '40s designed graphite block reactors
and smokey coal and oil fired plants. But when you take those
things away, you crush their economy. And it is not as though
these people are living large. Americans can tighten their belts
and conserve more, but I see no way we can ask a few million
Chinese to suck it up and turn out their one light bulb. And if
we did that, how could they see well enough to weld-up Habanero
frames for us. -- Jay Beattie.
 
Chalo wrote:
>

> You are assigning a false cause (energy efficiency) to the observed
> effect (increased gross energy usage). The real cause of increasing
> energy usage is growing population and a growing overall level of
> economic activity.

You speak vaguely, make claims, and have no citations. Indeed, I would agree
that increased population would tend to use more energy in a modern civilization
(really, any civilization). That alone does not change the macroeconomic
reality. Moreover, you can't simply make a claim that some arbitrary population
and and associated "economic activity" is somehow "right." In short, you seek
to control something you know nothing about. "Better efficiency" simply calls
more people into being, as they can thus be supported. You still have your
chicken-egg problem.

People will continue to push towards improving their living conditions (and that
includes what they "enjoy" rather than some cockeyed notion of "need"), despite
prescriptions by petty dictators. That means using more energy. Deal with it.

> Energy conservation measures can only offset these
> effects, not exaggerate them.

You still don't get it, and have zero argument against the macroeconomic
contention. You think by ignoring it, it will go away.

> You obviously see this issue from an irrational quasi-religious
> standpoint, and I expect that there is no point discussing the matter
> any further with you.

Why do you have such trouble elucidating the material details of that, if it is
indeed true? You have no argument, but beliefs to be upheld, so you attack the
individual rather than the argument itself.

> Less is not more, and saving something is not
> the same as wasting it,...

I brought up no value judgements ("wasting it") about energy use -- you did.
The value judgement has zero effect on the material idea, since it makes no
value judgement about particular usage. Moreover, no statement was made that
energy shouldn't be "saved" or "conserved" locally. In fact, I wrote that it
was a good idea. The question is whether it "saves" in the aggregate: it
doesn't, all other things equal.

> ...no matter what pseudoscientific claptrap you
> can point to.

It shouldn't be hard to debunk then. But you can't.



A more fuel efficient car allows someone to commute further to work.

Riding a bike to work gives someone the extra cash to buy a vacation and plane
ticket to Acapulco, or take a longer vacation in their car, or buy a train
ticket.

A more energy efficient air conditioner allows someone to buy another air
conditioner and more energy to power it.

Riding a small motor bike rather than driving an SUV saves the driver money for
which he/she can make donations to poor people, who in turn spend the money on
some form of energy, since that is all there is to spend money on.

$10 saved in the gas tank allows someone to buy a bottle of wine, which is
produced and transported with nothing but energy.

A $1000 saved in the gas tank is deposited into the bank, where it is lent out
to some new car buyer.

A $1000 saved in the gas tank is deposited into a venture capital account, which
invests into a new company, which in turn _turns the lights on_.



You cannot escape it. Energy is everything. All money "does" is buy energy.
Nothing moves without energy. Mass is neither created or destroyed. It is
simply reformed and transported -- all via energy. No one with any sense stuffs
money into the mattress unless they predict deflation. Even then, the days of
putting it to use purchasing energy are numbered. At most, usage can be delayed
a little bit. But note the correlation between deflation and delay. When was
the last time the US experienced deflation in a significant way? Is that what
you wish for? I think you do.


There may someday be a saturation of worldwide energy usage. We are a long way
from that.
 
Jay Beattie wrote:
>

> China is the best example of this.

It isn't just because you say it is. They increased their industrialization.
That, not really growing numbers but industrialization, accounts for increased
energy usage. A more distant history of this can be observed with the
industrialization of England, and its profound expansion of the use of coal.
That's what drove the fear of Jevons: he feared England would run out of coal.
Jevons observed that increasing efficiency was associated with increasing energy
use, rather than the opposite!

> It is true that second and
> third-world countries typically generate electricity with some of
> the dirtiest methods, like '40s designed graphite block reactors
> and smokey coal and oil fired plants. But when you take those
> things away, you crush their economy.

Never mind that. Think that when an American "saves" x joules of energy by
replacing all his incandescents with compact fluorescents, that energy saved
would have been generated in a relatively clean burning US plant.

Now say that American has $20 in his pocket due to the use of the compact
fluorescents, since his energy bill will be lower. He spends that $20 on a bike
widget made in China so he can get a bike on the road for the purpose of
commuting. The bike widget cannot be produced without the relatively "dirty"
energy coming from the Chinese coal plant (would it matter if it was steam via
wood? no), plus it must be transported across the ocean (never mind for a moment
all the energy that was spent collecting and reforming the raw materials.) Is
the world better off in the sense of energy consumption or pollution? The
answer is no. But the guy with the house full of compact fluorescents is better
off. He got his house lit up *and* a new bike widget.

This is an example of how good intentions are not followed by the expected
results.

> And it is not as though
> these people are living large. Americans can tighten their belts
> and conserve more, but I see no way we can ask a few million
> Chinese to suck it up and turn out their one light bulb. And if
> we did that, how could they see well enough to weld-up Habanero
> frames for us.

You completely ignore the main point, as if it does not exist. "Hear no evil
see no evil." I don't know if you mean to do that, but I think it is
important. I think energy is a critical issue. Therefore, we need to be
realistic regarding what we can and cannot accomplish. We cannot speak
reasonably about energy policy if the macroeconomic aspect is ignored. We would
be doomed to failure otherwise.
 
"gwhite" <[email protected]> wrote

> I brought up no value judgements ("wasting it") about energy use -- you
did.
> The value judgement has zero effect on the material idea, since it makes
no
> value judgement about particular usage. Moreover, no statement was made
that
> energy shouldn't be "saved" or "conserved" locally. In fact, I wrote
that it
> was a good idea. The question is whether it "saves" in the aggregate: it
> doesn't, all other things equal.

> A more fuel efficient car allows someone to commute further to work.

Etc., etc.

Supply and demand can be regulated by pricing. If energy is conserved, it
becomes less of a factor in overall costs, so it may stimulate that
particular activity, true. But (and this is a very important yet very
simple "but"), the government can control price via taxes, in effect
offsetting the otherwise increased demand. This is common policy in Europe.
It's then possible (at least in theory) for the government to stabilize
prices in the face of production fluctuations by modulating the tax. This
is really what our government does with certain agricultural commodities.
Additionally, the taxes can be used to ameliorate side effects of the
activity where social costs wouldn't normally be captured by the market
valuations. Obviously, government market regulation is mostly local in
effect (excluding tariffs), although there are global ripples. To the
extent we all live on the same planet, impacts of some activities cannot be
limited to local scope. Fairness would argue for some global policies for
resource conservation, allocation, and pricing. Conservation need not be a
zero sum (or worse) game. It's all a matter of policy. To argue that all
conservation is pointless, or counter-productive, is simplistic and wrong.

Putting value judgments on conservation is tricky only because there is no
universal set of values. Reasonable people may well disagree on how much
open space, clean air, or rain forest we really need. Likewise, some may be
less risk-averse than others when it comes to short-term market
fluctuations. When it comes to energy use however, conservation would help
stability, particularly if coupled with government price controls. There's
no free lunch, though. Those stabilizing factors would have an economic
cost. Without market controls, you're right, an individual farmer choosing
to plant fewer soybeans just allows another farmer to plant more; a cyclist
not burning gas, just allows another citizen to burn more. Although this is
not quite the "efficiency" argument you cite (so it can't be worse than
zero sum), it does show that conservation without market intervention would
be ineffective. Market regulation has always been about trading off
fairness and risk against the costs of doing so. The goal is finding the
happy balance. Nothing new here.
 
>I'm thinking there is a number that might be useful to cycling
>advocates, but I don't have the data to calculate it or even to make
>a reasonable estimate...but maybe someone on the list does.

I'll take a shot.

>Suppose that bicycles were totally banned, and that every mile of
>bicycle travel was then replaced by an automobile trip.

Are you talking USA or worldwide? It would be under one percent in
the USA.

>How many additional gallons of gasoline per day or per year would
>then be consumed?

Assuming you gave every bicyclist in the world a fuel efficient car
it would likely come close to doubling oil demand.

>Anybody have a reasonable estimate?

Yeah, about a fraction of a day's production per year for the USA.

Strictly back of the envelope.


--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________
 
gwhite wrote:

>Chalo wrote:
>
>
>>gwhite <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Talk of "energy conservation" is often also associated with the concept of
>>>energy efficiency. That is, if some task is done with less energy consumption
>>>than it had previously required, then the process is considered to be more
>>>"energy efficient." Unfortunately, all evidence points to the fact that greater
>>>efficiency leads to greater energy consumption, an entirely non-intuitive
>>>result!
>>>
>>>http://technology.open.ac.uk/eeru/staff/horace/kbpotl.htm
>>>
>>>
>>I see that you have graduated from a tinfoil beanie to a tinfoil
>>mortarboard.
>>
>>
>
>Another way of saying this is that you have no argument of substance.
>
>
>
>>Fossil fuels are a finite and non-replenishable commodity.
>>
>>
>
>So? So were stone hand axes in the stone age.
>
>
Ever tried to cook a meal by burning flint instead of wood, gas,
charcoal etc...

>
>
>>All
>>prospective replacement sources of energy amount to a smaller total
>>than is currently consumed as fossil fuels.
>>
>>
>
>This is a false statement. I suspect you know it is false, which in that case
>would make you a liar.
>
>Breeder reactors could produce plenty of energy -- till the sun turns into a
>little red dot. You ignore it because you don't like radioactivity. No one
>does, but when it comes to a choice between surviving and "burying" radioactive
>waste, I think the choice people make will be clear. Fusion may be made to work
>someday, and could then supplant breeder reactors. The sooner a greater
>percentage of energy is produced by nuclear reactions, the sooner we diminish
>the burn rate of fossil fuels. You know, the same fossil fuels accused of
>contributing to global warming when burned. You have a fantasy that there is "a
>solution" to the energy problem. There is no solution, there is only tradeoffs.
>
>

Show me these commercial breeder reactors, providing electricity. We
need dozens of them going online RIGHT NOW. Where are they? Are they in
the future, after the downturn? Do they exist now? Are they just a
dream? Where are they?

>>So we are presented with
>>one of two options:
>>
>>1) increase our energy-efficiency, thereby fitting a given amount of
>>economic activity into a smaller amount of total energy consumption,
>>or
>>
>>
>
>Of course, you ignore the basic empirical truth: increased energy efficiency has
>led to more energy use, not less. You goal is fundamentally to *force* people
>to be poor, or even to deny them coming into existance in the first place. You
>are an arrogant wannabe dictator.
>
>

If you point out that trains kill people who park on railroad tracks,
then you're promoting this activity, right? If you point out that auto
accidents kill people, then you're promoting auto accidents, right? If a
newspaper publishes an article on a serial killer, then the newspaper is
promoting serial murders, right?

Then by discussing this issue, you're promoting these deaths yourself.

>>2) suffer an irretrievable economic collapse when the cheaply
>>accessible fossil fuels are burned up.
>>
>>
>
>This is based on your previous false statement.
>
>
You provided proof that commercial breeder reactors are going online now
to shoulder the burdern.

>>You seem to be in favor of speeding directly towards option #2.
>>
>>

Option #2 will come unless we go back in time and build your breeder
reactors. It's your fault for not promoting them earlier I think.

>"If you don't have an argument, make one up." I never said/wrote any such
>thing. I simply presented the facts, referenced an academic paper which itself
>provided a list of citations, and made no comment regarding "intent." Intent is
>in the domain of your arrogance.
>
>
>
>>Or
>>maybe, like former Interior Secretary James Watt, you reckon Jesus is
>>gonna come back soon, so we'd better pump all the oil and strip-mine
>>all the coal on the double.
>>
>>
>
>This is rambling nonsense that likely has something to do with some goofy
>partisan beliefs of your own, not mine.
>
>
>
>>Growth in the rate of energy use is a result of a capitalistic focus
>>on continuously accelerating econimic growth, not a result of people's
>>efforts to reduce consumption.
>>
>>
>
>You live in a fantasy land and continue to ignore the basic macroeconomic
>argument because it is impossible to resolve the truth with your wishful
>thinking. You ignore reality and simply put your hopes (sophistry) about how
>you wish the world would be, in place of how it actually is. You have a
>religious belief that you (and other elites) can design the intent, purpose, and
>results of some ethereal "human society." There is no such thing. There is
>simply a lot of people, that is all. You are so arrogant -- you think you know
>what is "right" for all the people of the world, and thus to *dictate* how
>"things" should be done. Another petty tyrant is born.
>
And you're promoting a fanatastic Sci-Fi solution that no one has had
success in making work yet.

Jack Dingler
 
"LioNiNoiL_a t_Y a h 0 0_d 0 t_c 0 m" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:1yW6d.6970$pN6.5040@fed1read06...
> Sheldon Brown wrote:
>
> > Well...last weekend I went for a delightful 40 mile ride on my
> > Quickbeam fixed gear, in the countryside west of Boston...
> > Lexington, Concord, Carlisle, Sudbury, Weston then back home
> > to Newton.
> >
> > It was a gorgeous day, some of the leaves are just beginning to
> > turn. I was on beautiful winding roads, well paved with rolling
> > terrain, listening to Das Rheingold on my iPod and having an
> > absolutely delightful time...but, as I was riding along in this
> > cheerful mode, I couldn't help but be surprised at how many big
> > SUVs drove past me with shiny clean high-end mountain bikes
> > on them...
>
> Some years ago, my tandem stoker made a similar observation, and laughed
> uproariously at my sarcastic response: "they're taking their bikes for a
> ride."

I always have to shake my head at the holier-than-thou attitude expressed
regarding bikes on car roofs. Perhaps that person would rather not battle
city traffic in order to get out into the countryside? If the car you saw
was already in the countryside, perhaps they were not to their riding
destination/start yet? Perhaps they ultimately rode twice the miles you did
today?
 
In article <MGH7d.57715$He1.27882@attbi_s01>,
"Kyle.B.H" <[email protected]> writes:

> I always have to shake my head at the holier-than-thou attitude expressed
> regarding bikes on car roofs. Perhaps that person would rather not battle
> city traffic in order to get out into the countryside?

A lot of the trick to dealing with city traffic is to /not/
do battle with it; just co-exist and cooperate, and smoothly
flow along with it.

I dunno why so many people think riding in the city is tantamount
to a Knight Errant picking up sword & shield and sallying forth.

If anyone /really/ wants to ride, they won't feel exiled to the
extra-urban Forbidden Wasteland to do so -- they'll just get on
their bikes and ride, without seeking excuses not to. Wherever
they are.

> If the car you saw
> was already in the countryside, perhaps they were not to their riding
> destination/start yet? Perhaps they ultimately rode twice the miles you did
> today?

Maybe the weather didn't look conducive, so they turned around
and drove back home.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
"Kyle.B.H" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I always have to shake my head at the holier-than-thou attitude expressed
>regarding bikes on car roofs. Perhaps that person would rather not battle
>city traffic in order to get out into the countryside? If the car you saw
>was already in the countryside, perhaps they were not to their riding
>destination/start yet? Perhaps they ultimately rode twice the miles you did
>today?

I think most of the "attitude" you've seen is more akin to irony than
scorn. We've probably all (OK, OK... ALMOST all...) at one point or
another tossed our beloved bikes into a vehicle propelled by
petrochemicals and transported it to a place we want to ride. Just a
couple weekends ago, I did the same thing with my tandem. Thing is,
had I ridden it the 150 hilly miles to the race, I doubt I would have
done well (not that I did all that well anyway - sigh).

Other times, I've driven my MTB to very "reachable-by-bike" locations
since the road tears up the knobby tires I ride... just 20-30 miles of
asphalt will significantly round the knobs.

But it's true that there are a lot of riders who will miss the obvious
opportunity to ride to their ride.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:

> Other times, I've driven my MTB to very "reachable-by-bike" locations
> since the road tears up the knobby tires I ride... just 20-30 miles of
> asphalt will significantly round the knobs.
>
> But it's true that there are a lot of riders who will miss the obvious
> opportunity to ride to their ride.

I suppose there are those who just don't feel comfortable riding
in any more traffic'd situation than a MUP, and have to venture
far afield (by car) to reach such a place.

But I also suspect there are those who bought cars with an
ornamental bike or two stuck on 'em as part of the deal,
and they just never bothered to take them off. Sooner or
later an underground parking lot or other low clearance will
take care of that for 'em.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
gwhite <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Sheldon Brown wrote:
> >
> > I'm thinking there is a number that might be useful to cycling
> > advocates,...
>
> In what way? *Most* folks have mistaken ideas about energy conservation, if
> that is the concern. It is an economic fallacy that local conservation leads to
> conservation in the whole (aggregate).

Well then, let's try asking a question that an economist would love .
.. .

Nobody seriously argues that the driver is actually paying all of the
direct and indirect costs of driving an automobile.

If all the true costs of automobile driving were borne directly by the
driver, leading to a greatly increased direct cost of driving and no
"subsidy", how much would bicycling increase in the U.S.?

Or, putting it the other way around, how many miles per year of
bicycle travel in the U.S. are being discouraged because automobile
driving is subsidized?

I'll leave it to others to try and crank some hard numbers. But I
would guess, based on the amount of bicycling in countries that are
physically & socially similar to the U.S. but in which gasoline costs
a few times more, that bicycling would increase as much as 10-20 times
if gasoline were, say, $10/gallon.

Walking and mass transit use would increase dramatically,
too--probably even more in absolute terms than bicycling would.

A couple of specific facts to justify my guestimate: Some recent
figures indicate that in Europe, "35-45% of all utilitarian trips were
made by walking or cycling while in the U.S., cycling made up only 1%
of all trips and 5% were on foot." And this rather dramatic increase
in walking and bicycling is brought about by a price of gasoline only
3-4 times as high as the U.S.: in February of this year the price of
gasoline in the U.S. was $1.65 while in France it was $4.81, Germany
$5.14, and Italy $5.08.

Notes & references:

See some estimates of how much gasoline would cost if the price were
raised to include the "true cost" of driving:

http://www.preservenet.com/ATAutoWelfare.html

A similar study:

http://www.icta.org/projects/trans/

Source for 35-45% walking & bicycling for utilitarian trips in Europe:

http://www.cfsc.ottawa.on.ca/BetterBicycling/2004Autumn/a-pucher.shtml

The article also notes that "Eighty percent of cycling trips in the
U.S. are recreational while in Europe, 80% of cycling trips are
utilitarian." This implies that the vast majority of the additional
bicycle trips in Europe are utilitarian; that is to say, as gasoline
prices rise, the amount of recreational bicycle trips rises slightly
but the number of utilitarian bicycle trips rises dramatically.

Source for gasoline prices, February 2004:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/world_gasoline_prices.html

--Brent
bhugh [at] mwsc.edu
www.MoBikeFed.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back