Cities Turning to Bicycles



In article <[email protected]>, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> This is at least partly because a tractor trailer plowed through a toll
> booth a few years ago. The toll booth workers _really_ prefer that
> drivers come out of their trances. It helps their life expectancy.


See this is the speed kills idiotcy at work. Someone bribes their way to
an IL CDL, starts driving a truck without the proper training, trades it
in for CA CDL, eventually rams a line of cars at toll booth and kills a few
people and what's the answer? Lower the speed limits. Typical dishonesty.
Bringing this up allows for the illustration of the corruption of IL
government, but anything else.
 
> Bio fuels are claimed to be carbon neutral because plants
> convert the CO2 from their combustion back into carbon and
> oxygen when they grow. It is claimed to be a closed cycle
> so that there is no net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.


=v= What's generally left out of this claim is the length of
time CO2 spends in the atmosphere. Also kept vague is just
how much of our energy demand (or even actual needs) can
be handled with biomass, and thus how much supposed carbon
neutrality can help. I want to see numbers, not just vague
back-of-envelope scenarios.

=v= I'm certainly glad biomass lends a hand, and even gladder
that we've finally figured out how to make a biomass fuel
(biodiesel) that actually produces more energy than it takes
to be produced. Yet all I'm seeing it used for is idiotic
pilot projects such as biodiesel fuel cell "green" Hummers.

=v= Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic would actually be
a better use of time.

> If biofuels can't replace all fossil fuels, there are several
> options being developed that also have the potential to
> replace fossil fuel.


=v= I've been hearing vague promises about these "several
options" ever since the Energy Crisis in the 1970s. Aside from
Amory Lovins, few have bothered to work out real numbers. It's
been 30 years; let's see something other than vague scenarios.
<_Jym_>
 
Jym Dyer wrote:

><snip>
>=v= Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic would actually be
>a better use of time.
>
>
>
>>If biofuels can't replace all fossil fuels, there are several
>>options being developed that also have the potential to
>>replace fossil fuel.
>>
>>

>
>=v= I've been hearing vague promises about these "several
>options" ever since the Energy Crisis in the 1970s. Aside from
>Amory Lovins, few have bothered to work out real numbers. It's
>been 30 years; let's see something other than vague scenarios.
> <_Jym_>
>


The arguments for doing nothing, have remained essentially unchanged for
decades. What has changed is the argued trigger point for when alternate
fuels will save us.

It's been argued that these alternatives will kick in when the price of
crude reaches...
$15/barrel
$20/barrel
$25/barrel
$30/barrel
$35/barrel
$40/barrel
$45/barrel
$50/barrel
$55/barrel
......

And we've also heard it argued that some other guy, not us, is about to
invent a technology that will fix everything. Yet we never hear who he
is or have a clue what that technology will be.

And as we've waited the price of oil has risen through...
$15/barrel
$20/barrel
$25/barrel
$30/barrel
$35/barrel
$40/barrel
$45/barrel
$50/barrel
......

And still we wait for the future to come and fix the problems of the
past. Because now it's a bit late. How much longer do we do nothing
while waiting for a miracle of faith to occur?

Jack Dingler
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Jack Dingler <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Jym Dyer wrote:
>
>><snip>
>>=v= Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic would actually be
>>a better use of time.
>>
>>
>>
>>>If biofuels can't replace all fossil fuels, there are several
>>>options being developed that also have the potential to
>>>replace fossil fuel.
>>>
>>>

>>
>>=v= I've been hearing vague promises about these "several
>>options" ever since the Energy Crisis in the 1970s. Aside from
>>Amory Lovins, few have bothered to work out real numbers. It's
>>been 30 years; let's see something other than vague scenarios.
>> <_Jym_>
>>

>
>The arguments for doing nothing, have remained essentially unchanged for
>decades.


And each time the predicted End of The World As We Know It passes
without neither a bang nor a whimper, they're strengthened.
 
Matthew Russotto wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Jack Dingler <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Jym Dyer wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>><snip>
>>>=v= Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic would actually be
>>>a better use of time.
>>>
>>>
>>>=v= I've been hearing vague promises about these "several
>>>options" ever since the Energy Crisis in the 1970s. Aside from
>>>Amory Lovins, few have bothered to work out real numbers. It's
>>>been 30 years; let's see something other than vague scenarios.
>>> <_Jym_>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>The arguments for doing nothing, have remained essentially unchanged for
>>decades.
>>
>>

>
>And each time the predicted End of The World As We Know It passes
>without neither a bang nor a whimper, they're strengthened.
>


You've seen no change in the world over the last few decades? Is the
world of the 1960s still with us intact and whole? Or has the world as
we know it, actually changed?

I see it as the frog in the pot syndrome, you slowly turn up the heat
and the frog dies without ever realizing it's being cooked.

At what price for crude would you argue, will kick in alternatives? Or
do you think that oil production will keep rising through 2060 with ever
rising costs, while wages remain constant?

Or what scenario do you think is playing out?

Jack Dingler
 
>>> Let's hope so - we're going to be in a world of hurt if the fossil
>>> fuels run out before there is a good alternative.


>> There already is: biofuels. They'll last as long as the sun.


> No,
>
> 1. biofuels can not be produced in enough quantity to totally replace
> fossil fuels, and


Sure they can. There are farmers going broke all over the US Midwest
because prices for their products are so low. Growing grain for alcohol
(for example) would cure that problem too.

> 2. they cause just as much global warming and air pollution.


It isn't proven that global warming is even happening, and if it is, human
activities are probably not to blame.
http://www.sepp.org/statment.html

But even if all those scientists are wrong, global warming is trivial to
undo.
http://reason.com/9711/fe.benford.shtml

Save these clues! Collect the whole set!
 
The world's biggest oil companies are failing to get value for money
when they explore for new reserves, according to research by Wood
Mackenzie, the energy consultant.

The report shows the commercial value of oil and gas discovered over the
past three years by the 10 largest listed energy groups is running well
below the amount they have spent on exploration.

<snip>

Wood Mackenzie says the top-10 oil groups spent about $8bn combined on
exploration last year, but this only led to commercial discoveries with
a net present value of slightly less than $4bn. The previous two years
show similar, though less dramatic, shortfalls.

http://nytimes.com/financialtimes/business/FT20041010_7135_200375.html

Jack Dingler
 
"Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:fr1bd.236229$D%.61792@attbi_s51:

> Bio fuels are claimed to be carbon neutral because plants convert the
> CO2 from their combustion back into carbon and oxygen when they grow.
> It is claimed to be a closed cycle so that there is no net increase
> in CO2 in the atmosphere.


I don't believe that because the crop grown to be converted to biofuel has
displaced other plants that were there before that were probably pumping
just as much CO2 from the atmosphere. It's also been proven that plants can
not keep up with all the CO2 we're pumping out into the atmosphere - hence
the current problem we're having with global warming.

--
Mike DeMicco <[email protected]>
 
>>> The arguments for doing nothing, have remained essentially unchanged
>>> for decades.


>> And each time the predicted End of The World As We Know It passes
>> without neither a bang nor a whimper, they're strengthened.


> You've seen no change in the world over the last few decades? Is the
> world of the 1960s still with us intact and whole? Or has the world as
> we know it, actually changed?


We've been "20 years from no more oil" since 1870.

And air and water quality are BETTER today than in the '60s. The only
things in life that have not improved are government-provided services.
 
John David Galt wrote:

>>>> Let's hope so - we're going to be in a world of hurt if the fossil
>>>> fuels run out before there is a good alternative.
>>>

>
>>> There already is: biofuels. They'll last as long as the sun.

>>

>
>> No,
>> 1. biofuels can not be produced in enough quantity to totally replace
>> fossil fuels, and

>
>
> Sure they can. There are farmers going broke all over the US Midwest
> because prices for their products are so low. Growing grain for alcohol
> (for example) would cure that problem too.



We've just had five years where for various reasons we've produced less
food than we've consumed.

The low prices are mostly a commercial and political construct. The
entities that buy these products in bulk don't want to pay the higher
prices.

If we did switch to biofuels, there's no reason to expect that the
farmers will see higher prices paid for their crops.

Another last issue is that the crops best suited for biofuels, require
heavy use of fertilizers. Because Natural Gas in North America is
getting scarcer and may essentially run out at the end of the decade,
fertilizer plants all over the US are shutting down. Saudi Arabia may
become one of the world's primary sources of fertilizer and they
probably won't sell it cheap. The higher costs of fossil fuel
fertilizers used to grow biofuels in the future will likely simply drive
up food and fuel prices.

I think biofuels will be produced but will be sold at such a high price
that only the wealthy will be able to buy any of it.


>> 2. they cause just as much global warming and air pollution.

>
>
> It isn't proven that global warming is even happening, and if it is,
> human
> activities are probably not to blame.
> http://www.sepp.org/statment.html
>
> But even if all those scientists are wrong, global warming is trivial to
> undo.
> http://reason.com/9711/fe.benford.shtml
>
> Save these clues! Collect the whole set!



Yes, but don't go past the year 1992 and don't look anywhere else for clues.

Couldn't you have found an older article? I'm sure there's stuff from
the 1970s, you could've referenced.

Jack Dingler
 
John David Galt wrote:

>>>> The arguments for doing nothing, have remained essentially
>>>> unchanged for decades.
>>>

>
>>> And each time the predicted End of The World As We Know It passes
>>> without neither a bang nor a whimper, they're strengthened.

>>

>
>> You've seen no change in the world over the last few decades? Is the
>> world of the 1960s still with us intact and whole? Or has the world
>> as we know it, actually changed?

>
>
> We've been "20 years from no more oil" since 1870.



That's complete BS John. You just made that up.

> And air and water quality are BETTER today than in the '60s. The only
> things in life that have not improved are government-provided services.



That depends on where you take the measurements and what you measure.
But you just proved Matthew wrong rather than prove him right. He says
the world doesn't change. You just argued it does.

Jack Dingler
 
"John David Galt" <[email protected]> wrote
>> 1. biofuels can not be produced in enough quantity to totally replace
>> fossil fuels, and

>
> Sure they can. There are farmers going broke all over the US Midwest
> because prices for their products are so low. Growing grain for alcohol
> (for example) would cure that problem too.


One of the myriad reasons that farmers are going broke is that
diesel fuel and fertilizer (which is made using oil) prices have gone up.
I've seen claims that a gallon of bio-diesel takes anywhere from about
0.5 gallon to 1.25 gallon of crude oil to produce. Doesn't seem very
cost-effective to me.

Floyd
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Jack Dingler <[email protected]> wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Jack Dingler <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jym Dyer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>=v= Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic would actually be
>>>>a better use of time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>=v= I've been hearing vague promises about these "several
>>>>options" ever since the Energy Crisis in the 1970s. Aside from
>>>>Amory Lovins, few have bothered to work out real numbers. It's
>>>>been 30 years; let's see something other than vague scenarios.
>>>> <_Jym_>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The arguments for doing nothing, have remained essentially unchanged for
>>>decades.
>>>
>>>

>>
>>And each time the predicted End of The World As We Know It passes
>>without neither a bang nor a whimper, they're strengthened.
>>

>
>You've seen no change in the world over the last few decades? Is the
>world of the 1960s still with us intact and whole? Or has the world as
>we know it, actually changed?


Straw men all.

>I see it as the frog in the pot syndrome, you slowly turn up the heat
>and the frog dies without ever realizing it's being cooked.
>
>At what price for crude would you argue, will kick in alternatives?


Damned if I know.

>Or do you think that oil production will keep rising through 2060 with ever
>rising costs, while wages remain constant?


That's a possibility too, if alternatives remain more expensive than
that. It's also a possibility that costs will drop.
 
>> Aside from Amory Lovins, few have bothered to work out real
>> numbers. It's been 30 years; let's see something other than
>> vague scenarios.

> The arguments for doing nothing, have remained essentially
> unchanged for decades.


=v= I've made no such argument. A Google Groups search will
reveal that I've written much about the need to make changes
to transportation infrastructure rather than relying on some
"magic bullet" technology that only seems to ever exist as
an unverifiable prototype or is perpetually "one breakthough
away" from being of practical use.

=v= Don't get me wrong, I'm all into technological innovation.
I just don't think it ought to be used to perpetuate wasteful
and pointless endeavors. A solution to impending oil shortages
should be keeping people in hospitals alive, not helping people
drive their SUVs half a mile to pick up a pack of cigarettes.

=v= New technologies also tend to be expensive, affordable only
to an elite. Fixing the infrastructure, on the other hand, is
action that can be taken right now, and is much less expensive
in the long run.
<_Jym_>
 
Matthew Russotto wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Jack Dingler <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>Jack Dingler <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jym Dyer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>=v= Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic would actually be
>>>>>a better use of time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>=v= I've been hearing vague promises about these "several
>>>>>options" ever since the Energy Crisis in the 1970s. Aside from
>>>>>Amory Lovins, few have bothered to work out real numbers. It's
>>>>>been 30 years; let's see something other than vague scenarios.
>>>>> <_Jym_>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>The arguments for doing nothing, have remained essentially unchanged for
>>>>decades.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>And each time the predicted End of The World As We Know It passes
>>>without neither a bang nor a whimper, they're strengthened.
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>You've seen no change in the world over the last few decades? Is the
>>world of the 1960s still with us intact and whole? Or has the world as
>>we know it, actually changed?
>>
>>

>
>Straw men all.
>
>


Your argument is a strawman?

The world has gone through many, many End Of the World as We know It
events. Some where predicted, some weren't. Or are you saying such
things never happened? Would it be safe to say that you are arguing that
the Civil War, WW1, WWII and the Great Depression did nothing to change
the world for Americans? That through those events, nothing changed?

Or are you arguing something else altogether and just being very vague?

Jack Dingler
 
fbloogyudsr wrote:

> "John David Galt" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>> 1. biofuels can not be produced in enough quantity to totally
>>> replace fossil fuels, and

>>
>>
>> Sure they can. There are farmers going broke all over the US Midwest
>> because prices for their products are so low. Growing grain for alcohol
>> (for example) would cure that problem too.

>
>
> One of the myriad reasons that farmers are going broke is that
> diesel fuel and fertilizer (which is made using oil) prices have gone up.
> I've seen claims that a gallon of bio-diesel takes anywhere from about
> 0.5 gallon to 1.25 gallon of crude oil to produce. Doesn't seem very
> cost-effective to me.
>
> Floyd



You're close. fertilizer is currently made from natural gas. Something
that North America will be running low on in just a few years. There's
no technical reason why it can't be made from oil, it's simply more
efficient (cheaper) to make it from natural gas.

Soon, the US will have to buy all of it's fertilizer from overseas
sources. That will certainly drive up the cost of agriculture and biodiesel.

Jack Dingler
 
"Mike DeMicco" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I don't believe that because the crop grown to be converted to biofuel has
> displaced other plants that were there before that were probably pumping
> just as much CO2 from the atmosphere. It's also been proven that plants
> can
> not keep up with all the CO2 we're pumping out into the atmosphere - hence
> the current problem we're having with global warming.


If a plant in burned, it has to get CO2 from some where when the plant grows
back to the same size as the plant it replaces.

That carbon usually has to come from CO2 in the atmosphere. Over time it
has to balance out or the amount of plant mass must decrease.

I don't think biomass will be the source of most of our fuel, but it may be
a part of the solution.
 
"John David Galt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jack Dingler wrote:
>> The hydrogen economy has been touted as a replacement for fossil fuels,
>> which release carbon dioxide when burnt, thus contributing to global
>> warming. Burning hydrogen produces only water.

>
> But since you first have to produce the hydrogen using some other form of
> energy, the whole concept of a "hydrogen economy" was dimwitted from day
> one.


Your argument makes electricity dimwitted also. Hydrogen is a portable fuel
for the most part like electricity, not an energy source. The problem is
having a practical portable fuel for transportation. Electricity is not a
practical portable fuel
 
>> Jack Dingler wrote:
>>> The hydrogen economy has been touted as a replacement for fossil fuels,
>>> which release carbon dioxide when burnt, thus contributing to global
>>> warming. Burning hydrogen produces only water.


> "John David Galt" <[email protected]> wrote
>> But since you first have to produce the hydrogen using some other form of
>> energy, the whole concept of a "hydrogen economy" was dimwitted from day
>> one.


Jack May wrote:
> Your argument makes electricity dimwitted also.


It would certainly make the notion of replacing fuels with an "electricity
economy" dimwitted, but unlike hydrogen, enough people understand electricity
that nobody has proposed an "electricity economy".

I'm not saying that hydrogen won't ever be practical to use (though it mostly
isn't yet). Just that it can't be a replacement for fossil fuels.

> Hydrogen is a portable fuel
> for the most part like electricity, not an energy source. The problem is
> having a practical portable fuel for transportation. Electricity is not a
> practical portable fuel


These days, both are about equally impractical. It's a tossup which will
become cost effective for cars first. In both cases the present storage
technology is too heavy and holds too little power to make it pay now.

But the point of the "hydrogen economy" is its promise of pollution-free
power, and that promise is a lie. It doesn't surprise me that the Sierra
Club is promoting it, though; they're exactly the kind of people that want to
live in Los Angeles while exporting their pollution to power-plant locations
spread over the whole Southwest.
 
In article <vECbd.393227$Fg5.39992@attbi_s53>,
Jack May <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"John David Galt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Jack Dingler wrote:
>>> The hydrogen economy has been touted as a replacement for fossil fuels,
>>> which release carbon dioxide when burnt, thus contributing to global
>>> warming. Burning hydrogen produces only water.

>>
>> But since you first have to produce the hydrogen using some other form of
>> energy, the whole concept of a "hydrogen economy" was dimwitted from day
>> one.

>
>Your argument makes electricity dimwitted also.


Electricity being touted as a replacement for fossil fuels WOULD be
dimwitted, unless you specified electricity generated by nuclear,
wind, solar, hydroelectric, or other non-fossil sources.

>Hydrogen is a portable fuel
>for the most part like electricity, not an energy source. The problem is
>having a practical portable fuel for transportation. Electricity is not a
>practical portable fuel


Synthesized gasoline :)