Cities Turning to Bicycles



"Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:vECbd.393227$Fg5.39992@attbi_s53...
>
> "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
>
>
>

A hydrogen automobile network is entirely possible but not until the
overhead is put in place, and no one is going to do that until oil gets to
much higher value than at the present time.
 
"Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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 :)
>
>
>

I am heating by wood today. There is enough around to last me forever,
but I would have to cut a lot of the trees to do so.
 
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> I am heating by wood today. There is enough around to last me forever,

What's good for one is not necessarily good for the many.

> but I would have to cut a lot of the trees to do so.

That's what happened in Haiti - they ended up cutting down all the trees.
 
John David Galt <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> 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.

You are mistaken. The Sierra Club does not promote the "hydrogen
economy." Just the opposite.
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200405/lol.asp
 
>> 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.

And installed enough of those kinds of plants that when people started
switching, most of the new electricity WOULD come from clean sources.
(For most of these that can't be done. The environmental movement has
made nuclear non-cost-effective by demonstrating the willingness to
paralyze it for decades with meritless lawsuits. Most of the workable
hydropower sites have already been built, and the rest are blocked by
scenery-lovers or NIMBYs. Ditto most of the workable wind power sites.
And solar just isn't efficient enough to be worth building, especially
when you don't ignore the expected life span of the solar collectors or
the energy cost of manufacturing them.)

There ARE still some good alternative-energy sources that can be tapped
(ocean-thermal, for one) and should be, but I doubt it will happen soon.
 
"Will McW." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John David Galt <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>> 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.
>
> You are mistaken. The Sierra Club does not promote the "hydrogen
> economy." Just the opposite.
> http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200405/lol.asp

Must mean its a good solution.

The alternative of conservation they want is a short sighted, ineffective
approach that just delay the problem a little, does not solve the problem of
needing to transition from oil.
 
"John David Galt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> Your argument makes electricity dimwitted also.
> There ARE still some good alternative-energy sources that can be tapped
> (ocean-thermal, for one) and should be, but I doubt it will happen soon.

The British have been working with ocean power for some time. The main
problem is that storms can be so violent that it is very hard to design
systems that will survive for a long time.
 
John David Galt wrote:

>>> 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.
>
>
> And installed enough of those kinds of plants that when people started
> switching, most of the new electricity WOULD come from clean sources.
> (For most of these that can't be done. The environmental movement has
> made nuclear non-cost-effective by demonstrating the willingness to
> paralyze it for decades with meritless lawsuits. Most of the workable
> hydropower sites have already been built, and the rest are blocked by
> scenery-lovers or NIMBYs. Ditto most of the workable wind power sites.
> And solar just isn't efficient enough to be worth building, especially
> when you don't ignore the expected life span of the solar collectors or
> the energy cost of manufacturing them.)
>
> There ARE still some good alternative-energy sources that can be tapped
> (ocean-thermal, for one) and should be, but I doubt it will happen soon.


Delaware Offering Radiation Protection Pills
Meanwhile, the state of Delaware will be handing out potassium iodide pills
to residents living in the shadow of the Salem and Hope Creek nuclear
plants. Officials said that the pills will protect the thyroid gland in the
event of a radiation release. People living within 10 miles of the reactors
can get the pills on Wednesday at the Townsend Fire Company and on Oct. 28
at the Appoquinimink state service center in Middletown, Del. Residents
should bring proof of address
http://www.nbc10.com/news/3801110/detail.html

Nuclear agency probes plant shortcomings
TRENTON -- The Salem nuclear plant is deficient in dozens of critical
aspects and is being investigated over reports that employees were afraid to
express safety concerns, according to a published report.
Problems cited in reports by private consultants include the reliability of
equipment and availability of spare parts, The New York Times reported in
yesterday's editions. Reports specifically noted a leaky generator and
unreliable controls on a reactor.
In addition, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission is investigating
claims by at least two employees that their superiors retaliated against
them after they expressed concerns about safety, the newspaper reported
http://www.app.com/app/story/0,21625,1076695,00.html

Jack Dingler
 
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:11:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:

>AZGuy wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:58:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Nate had previously talked about being able to see "miles" down the road
>>>at night. He needs to be brought back to reality. People who think
>>>their lights extend for "miles" are likely to overdrive them.
>>
>>
>> What seems to be ignored in this discussion sometimes is that the
>> 'overdriving' your lights is much more applicable to a situation where
>> you are the ONLY driver/car on the highway. In most cases you are not
>> and the dozens of people ahead of you have already "cleared" the path.
>> Aside from an area where there is a real likelihood of a large animal
>> jumping out onto the road, there's not a whole not of danger in going
>> 90 mph at night as long as you have all those clearing cars ahead of
>> you, esp if you can see their tail lights. There isn't going to be an
>> accident you don't notice that will suddenly surprise you, or a car
>> stopped in the lane ahead unless it purposely pulled out without it's
>> lights on and then managed to stop in the several seconds between when
>> the last car ahead of you went past and when you arrive at that spot.
>
>Understood. However, in the post that originally got us on this
>sub-topic, the poster was bragging about an old vehicle doing "75+ mph"
>on a rural two lane road.
>
>Can you count on nobody walking across that road at night? If, say, the
>speed limit is 55 mph and a pedestrian is waiting for several cars to
>pass, he will likely be judging the time available based on the motion
>of the 55 mph cars, since ordinary depth perception is fairly useless in
>such circumstances.
>
>So we'd likely have this situation: the pedestrian saying, after
>waiting a while as cars pass, "OK, based on what I just saw with the
>last 5 cars, if the next car is at least as far as that distant
>billboard, I'll have just enough time to safely cross."
>
>But if the next car is doing 90 instead of 55, there's not time to
>cross. And pedestrians are no more illuminated than deer and dogs and
>tree branches.
>
>So briefly, we have our hypothetical driver exceeding his capabilities
>and those of his vehicle based on certain assumptions. Often the
>assumptions are true, but sometimes they're not.
>
>The benefits go to the driver, and are - let's face it - not worth much.
> They are: getting home to watch the beginning of the Simpsons; and/or
>feeling really cool while pretending to be a race car driver.
>

There's a difference between going 50 instead of 90 for 4 miles from
the grocery store to your house and the small savings of time but if
you are driving from Phoenix to LA, there is a HUGE difference in time
between poking along at 50 instead of 90. I wasn't suggesting that
it's safe to go 90 at night everywhere, only that there are certainly
plenty of instances where it is safe to go 90 at night.


>The detriments go to everyone else: more risk, less mobility, more
>noise, more taxes for police enforcement, more funding for emergency
>personnel and ER teams who have to scrape Speed Racer out of the ditch
>and put him back together, etc.


Well, as long as cops feel it's OK for them to drive WAY faster then
the rest of traffic I'm going to think it's OK for me to (as long as I
can avoid the cops). If it's safe for them, it's safe for me. Most
of them can't drive worth a **** anyway but they still let them
endanger everyone else on the road and usually for no worthwhile
purpose.

--
Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts:

"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . .
Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of
the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order
to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House
of Representatives, August 17, 1789
 
"Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:6h1cd.247315$MQ5.226792@attbi_s52...
>
.. . .
> Problems cited in reports by private consultants include the reliability
> of
> equipment and availability of spare parts, The New York Times reported in
> yesterday's editions. Reports specifically noted a leaky generator and
> unreliable controls on a reactor.
> In addition, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission is investigating
> claims by at least two employees that their superiors retaliated against
> them after they expressed concerns about safety, the newspaper reported

And the ratio of people that have died from coal pollution to the number of
people that have died from nuclear power plant radiation is ...?

You also think that no advances in nuclear power plant safety over the
decades? Your problem with pebble bed and other new reactor designs that
can not melt down even without controls is what?

Do you believe that the world never changes and problems are never be
solved?
 
Jack May wrote:

>"Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:6h1cd.247315$MQ5.226792@attbi_s52...
>
>
>. . .
>
>
>>Problems cited in reports by private consultants include the reliability
>>of
>>equipment and availability of spare parts, The New York Times reported in
>>yesterday's editions. Reports specifically noted a leaky generator and
>>unreliable controls on a reactor.
>>In addition, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission is investigating
>>claims by at least two employees that their superiors retaliated against
>>them after they expressed concerns about safety, the newspaper reported
>>
>>
>
>And the ratio of people that have died from coal pollution to the number of
>people that have died from nuclear power plant radiation is ...?
>
>You also think that no advances in nuclear power plant safety over the
>decades? Your problem with pebble bed and other new reactor designs that
>can not melt down even without controls is what?
>
>Do you believe that the world never changes and problems are never be
>solved?
>
>
>

Those quotes were from the article. I didn't write them.

Pebble beds so far have some sort of weird run away feedback problem.
The experimental versions don't work yet. Maybe they will work one day.

But what worries me is the that many in nuclear crowd wants nukes to
replace oil. To reach that quantity of energy production, we'd need
thousands in the US. Then we'd need to build hundreds every year to keep
economic growth going. To man these things I guess we could import cheap
engineers with fake degrees from India. Our own education systems aren't
prepared for this.

Finally, we need to be building them by the hundreds now so that in ten
years, when we absolutely need them need them, they will be ready. I see
no sign we're doing that now.

Some folks here argue that we'll build nukes during the energy decline.
But that's like investing after you're retired, without investing before
you retire. Isn't it prudent to invest when you have resources rather
than wait until you don't have them?

Jack Dingler
 
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/#Julian20041013

There's talk about oil prices staying high, but they won't. They
represent negative feedback to the economy. Once enough jobs are shed
and especially after the economic downturn in 2005, I think oil prices
will be down to the mid-thirties.

Matthew, you need to get on CNN and argue your case.

Jack Dingler
 
Jack Dingler <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<ogccd.191841$wV.178195@attbi_s54>...
> http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/#Julian20041013
>
> There's talk about oil prices staying high, but they won't. They
> represent negative feedback to the economy. Once enough jobs are shed
> and especially after the economic downturn in 2005, I think oil prices
> will be down to the mid-thirties.
>
> Matthew, you need to get on CNN and argue your case.
>
> Jack Dingler

Crude is now going for $55 a barrel. A year ago it was $27. It's a
speculative bubble and it will end soon. $40 before the eoy. As we
speak, investors are rotating out of energy and into technology
stocks.
 
On 16 Oct 2004 19:44:24 -0700, [email protected] (Laura Bush
murdered her boy friend) wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>As we
>speak, investors are rotating out of energy and into technology
>stocks.

ITYM "speculators". Investors are in for the long haul.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
>
> On 16 Oct 2004 19:44:24 -0700, [email protected] (Laura Bush
> murdered her boy friend) wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >As we
> >speak, investors are rotating out of energy and into technology
> >stocks.
>
> ITYM "speculators". Investors are in for the long haul.

A lot of people who are considered investors will sell their stock
after it has stopped appreciating in favor of buying a stock which
appears to have better current prospects for appreciation.

The speculators I'm thinking of were the ones who bought crude futures
at $40 a barrel in hopes of quickly seeing $50 a barrel. I wish I were
one of them.
Mitch.
 
Mitch Haley wrote:

>"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
>
>
>>On 16 Oct 2004 19:44:24 -0700, [email protected] (Laura Bush
>>murdered her boy friend) wrote in message
>><[email protected]>:
>>
>>
>>
>>>As we
>>>speak, investors are rotating out of energy and into technology
>>>stocks.
>>>
>>>
>>ITYM "speculators". Investors are in for the long haul.
>>
>>
>
>A lot of people who are considered investors will sell their stock
>after it has stopped appreciating in favor of buying a stock which
>appears to have better current prospects for appreciation.
>
>The speculators I'm thinking of were the ones who bought crude futures
>at $40 a barrel in hopes of quickly seeing $50 a barrel. I wish I were
>one of them.
>Mitch.
>

Exactly. They see the end of the $50 crude coming, as demand destruction
signs are picking up.

We've seen a rise in the jobless rate and signs the economy has slowed.
By shedding jobs and increasing both business and personal bankruptcies,
the economy is able to account for supply and demand mismatches and
automatically correct. This is natural. The only way to keep jobs going,
would be to find ways to free up fuel from other less necessary uses.
Capitalism has no innate mechanism for managing this, so boom and bust
is the natural mechanism. As production increases in energy aren't
keeping pace with population growth in the US, the net effect is that
energy per capita is declining and the result is a cooling off of the
economy and net job loss.

The same situation happens in ecological systems when the food supply
doesn't rise to meet the population. The population self reduces to
match the food supply. As this is often an overshoot situation the
population usually drops lower than it need be, then swings back up
again for another crash. This happened to the reindeer on Matthew
Island. In healthy ecosystems, there are checks and balances and
populations have limiting mechanisms. We work hard though to eliminate
checks on the economy though. Because we're always trying to run it flat
out at maximum speed, it's prone to the boom and bust cycle as it hits
resource limits.

2005 should be a correction year with a new recession kicking in for the
first quarter. By shedding jobs and businesses, the economy will cool
until demand for oil is reduced enough to bring the price back down. The
US Gov will compensate by releasing a flood of money into the economy,
and this will raise fuel prices and pick up economic growth again until
it hits those supply and demand limits again.

The problem with blaming speculators every time prices rise, is that
this argument often must pretend that the laws of supply and demand
don't exist. Even at $54 / barrel for crude, production all up and down
the chain is running flat out. The wells are pumping as fast as they
can, storage is way down, tanker contracts are high, refineries are
running flat out. This means we're sucking the oil out of the ground as
fast as we can and using it just as fast. When supply and demand get
this tight, basic economics tells us the price will rise.

And yes, speculators will cause price increases as will any little
setback in the supply and demand chain. But only because the supply and
demand chain has no slack. When you're running at maximum capacity, the
slightest setback will magnify in costs.
 
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 13:29:47 -0500, [email protected]
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>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.

That is one of the benefits of electricity: it is amenable to changes
of fuel without having to re-equip vast numbers of homes and
businesses.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
In article <ogccd.191841$wV.178195@attbi_s54>,
Jack Dingler <[email protected]> wrote:
>http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/#Julian20041013
>
>There's talk about oil prices staying high, but they won't. They
>represent negative feedback to the economy. Once enough jobs are shed
>and especially after the economic downturn in 2005, I think oil prices
>will be down to the mid-thirties.
>
>Matthew, you need to get on CNN and argue your case.

Why would I bother? Who, besides other Chicken Littles and those with
vested interests in believing them, is going to listen to people who
have announced that Oil Is Running Out many times before and been
wrong each time?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 13:29:47 -0500, [email protected]
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>That is one of the benefits of electricity: it is amenable to changes
>of fuel without having to re-equip vast numbers of homes and
>businesses.

Too bad the transmission and distribution losses are so high and the
current technology for storage is so poor.
 
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <ogccd.191841$wV.178195@attbi_s54>,
> Jack Dingler <[email protected]> wrote:
> >http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/#Julian20041013
> >
> >There's talk about oil prices staying high, but they won't. They
> >represent negative feedback to the economy. Once enough jobs are shed
> >and especially after the economic downturn in 2005, I think oil prices
> >will be down to the mid-thirties.
> >
> >Matthew, you need to get on CNN and argue your case.
>
> Why would I bother? Who, besides other Chicken Littles and those with
> vested interests in believing them, is going to listen to people who
> have announced that Oil Is Running Out many times before and been
> wrong each time?
>
Do recall that in the story about the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf, that the
wolf did in fact finally show up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back