Cities Turning to Bicycles



--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <fEadd.497366$8_6.323212@attbi_s04>,
>
> Nope. But I can do math, and I can see I can't eliminate 80% of my
> personal energy consumption without sweltering in the heat and
> shivering in the cold.

Sure you can.

>That is, turning off my A/C and heat entirely would be
> necessary (though not sufficient) to reduce my energy consumption by
> that amount.

You just don't want to invest in the alternatives that would let you be cool
without the A/C and warm without the heat.
 
Matthew Russotto wrote:

>In article <cDadd.154513$He1.9071@attbi_s01>,
>Jack Dingler <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>In article <XeYcd.493496$8_6.260255@attbi_s04>,
>>>Jack Dingler <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>What's the replacement? What is this new source of energy? How soon can
>>>>we implement it? I think you assume that all problems have solutions.
>>>>It's been proven more than once in science and mathematics, that this is
>>>>a false assumption.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>So your claim remains that there is no solution and we're all going to
>>>die prematurely. OK. Suppose, for the sake of argument, I assume
>>>this is true? What practical results does it lead to? What actions
>>>does it recommend? None -- therefore it's a foolish assumption to make.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>How is any death deemed to be premature?
>>
>>Are you saying we should ignore all problems that might lead to bad
>>results? And if faced with an issue that could cause a disaster, then
>>it's foolish to assume it's real? Unless your words have a secret coded
>>meaning, I think this is the argument you are making. That when faced
>>with tough, sometimes unsolvable problems, the best course is to ignore
>>them as they don't really exist.
>>
>>
>
>I am saying that the possibility that the problem (if it exists) may
>be unsolvable is best ignored.
>
>

This is why I believe it is unsolvable. It would first require that many
people like yourself, admit we have a problem. That won't happen unless
the problem becomes severe and unavoidable. Then it's too late. We're
not the kind of creatures that worked to prevent disasters unless we've
already experienced one just like it. If you look at the history of
engineering, much our advancements in safety came only because of
spectacular disasters. People that pointed out that a given project was
unsafe for sometimes obvious reasons are typically sidelined and
marginalized.

It's pretty much a rule that in civilized endeavors that only
spectacular disasters can initiate significant change in a positive
direction.

The fact that people like you can't understand or accept there is a
problem, much less garner the will and determination to learn more about
it and work to head it off, means that it will take a disaster to bring
folks around. As this fossil fueled civilization is a one shot deal, the
learning curve on this one is going to hurt. It's because of intentional
ignorance.

>>For a time, I wondered how an engineer like yourself, could ignore
>>failure modes and design thing with the attitude that you never plan to
>>avoid the worst case
>>
>>
>
>I'm not an engineer. However, I note that there is a maxim in system
>programming that one should never test for an error condition that you
>don't know how to handle.
>

That is the stupidest programming maxim I have ever heard of. That
behavior guarantees disaster.

Jack Dingler
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Baxter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <fEadd.497366$8_6.323212@attbi_s04>,
>>
>> Nope. But I can do math, and I can see I can't eliminate 80% of my
>> personal energy consumption without sweltering in the heat and
>> shivering in the cold.
>
>Sure you can.
>
>>That is, turning off my A/C and heat entirely would be
>> necessary (though not sufficient) to reduce my energy consumption by
>> that amount.
>
>You just don't want to invest in the alternatives that would let you be cool
>without the A/C and warm without the heat.

Moving isn't a reasonable alternative.
 
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:22:31 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>
>Big Bill wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:38:02 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Let's see, oil is a finite resource. When we use it, we burn it and what
>>>we use is gone forever.
>>>
>>>Does this mean...
>>>A. Oil will last forever?
>>>B. Oil will eventually run out?
>>>
>>>If you chose 'A', the you must believe that oil is actually infinite in
>>>quantity. You might believe that the Earth is flat or that the
>>>accessible oil exceeds the volume of the universe.
>>>
>>>If you believe in 'B', then you're just baiting me and lying about your
>>>position, because we're not arguing whether oil will run out, but when.
>>>
>>>Jack Dingler
>>>
>>>
>>
>>There's a difference between, "Oil *will* run out", and "Oil *is*
>>running out."
>>We know it *will* run out. When is the question.
>>IMO, it's kinda rediculous to think that those who profit from energy
>>production & distribution aren't working to keep their income secure.
>>They can't make more oil than there is, so they *must* be working on a
>>replacement. It's economic suicide for them to not do this. They are
>>even getting various governments around the world to help fund this.
>>When oil *does* run out (and probably before) there will be something
>>to take it's place.
>>Remember ambergris? Now, we only find it by chance. We don't miss it
>>much.
>>
>>Bill Funk
>>Change "g" to "a"
>>
>
>What's the replacement? What is this new source of energy? How soon can
>we implement it? I think you assume that all problems have solutions.
>It's been proven more than once in science and mathematics, that this is
>a false assumption.

Ask them. I never claimed to be part of that group.
>
>I personally, have no idea what could possibly replace oil in energy
>concentration and convenience. Civilization has been exploiting ever
>more concentrated and convenient forms of energy since man first started
>burning wood. What's the next step?

Did I make a claim that there's something that would "replace oil in
energy concentration and convenience"? No, I didn't.
>
>I think to believe the sort of argument that you are proposing, assumes
>that science is still somewhat in it's infancy, that our knowledge of
>geology, energy, materials etc..., is till relatively unformed. It
>requires I believe that level of understanding that existed over a
>century ago, when man was still making basic discoveries about the
>makeup of the Earth. I think that time is long past. If there were a
>cheap abundant and easily used energy source ready to replace the
>fossilized energy in oil, we'd already be using it. After all, wouldn't
>it be cheaper and more abundant than petroleum, just as petroleum is
>cheaper and more abundant than whale oil?
>
>Here's a link describing ambergris and it's use as an agent in making
>perfumes. I'm not sure what this has to do with energy and fuel.
>http://www.netstrider.com/documents/ambergris/
>
>Jack Dingler

I think you're fumbling in the dark because you want the situation
we're in to be *somone's fault*, and they better get us a solution
*right now*!
Instead, try a calm understanding of the problem, and see that oil
won't run out next year.
Then look around at the research (theoretical as well as practical)
that's going on now.
Put them together, and you'll see the sky isn't falling.
Why are you so insistant that you are the only one who can see beyond
his nose? Why aren't *you* out there finding this new energy source?

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
 
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:35:47 -0700, "Baxter"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <fEadd.497366$8_6.323212@attbi_s04>,
>>
>> Nope. But I can do math, and I can see I can't eliminate 80% of my
>> personal energy consumption without sweltering in the heat and
>> shivering in the cold.
>
>Sure you can.
>
>>That is, turning off my A/C and heat entirely would be
>> necessary (though not sufficient) to reduce my energy consumption by
>> that amount.
>
>You just don't want to invest in the alternatives that would let you be cool
>without the A/C and warm without the heat.

And those alternatives are... ?
Let's be real, and pick something that will actually work *now*, not
"real soon now."

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
 
In article <45edd.278024$D%.158369@attbi_s51>,
Jack Dingler <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>>I am saying that the possibility that the problem (if it exists) may
>>be unsolvable is best ignored.
>
>This is why I believe it is unsolvable. It would first require that many
>people like yourself, admit we have a problem. That won't happen unless
>the problem becomes severe and unavoidable. Then it's too late. We're
>not the kind of creatures that worked to prevent disasters unless we've
>already experienced one just like it.

Heard of something called "The Y2K Bug"? While people certainly do
behave as you describe quite often, it's not universal. Of course,
usually when disaster is averted without some spectacular event
precipitating the precautions, it's neither newsworthy nor memorable;
the Y2K bug is an exception.

>The fact that people like you can't understand or accept there is a
>problem, much less garner the will and determination to learn more about
>it and work to head it off, means that it will take a disaster to bring
>folks around. As this fossil fueled civilization is a one shot deal, the
>learning curve on this one is going to hurt. It's because of intentional
>ignorance.

Work to head it off? You've said it's unsolvable. If that's so, I
can't head it off.

>>>For a time, I wondered how an engineer like yourself, could ignore
>>>failure modes and design thing with the attitude that you never plan to
>>>avoid the worst case
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I'm not an engineer. However, I note that there is a maxim in system
>>programming that one should never test for an error condition that you
>>don't know how to handle.
>>
>
>That is the stupidest programming maxim I have ever heard of. That
>behavior guarantees disaster.

OK... so once you've detected the error condition you don't know how
to handle, what do you do about it?
 
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:44:08 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>If I knew, I'd be making a fortune developing it.
>>
>>
>
>So would anyone else. Yet no one is.

Right here, you demonstrate the proctologist's view of the world.
Pull out, look around, and actually *try* to see more than your doom
and gloom friends feed you.
No one is working on other power/energy sources? Where do you live?

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
 
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:29:04 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>>In article <XeYcd.493496$8_6.260255@attbi_s04>,
>>Jack Dingler <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What's the replacement? What is this new source of energy? How soon can
>>>we implement it? I think you assume that all problems have solutions.
>>>It's been proven more than once in science and mathematics, that this is
>>>a false assumption.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>So your claim remains that there is no solution and we're all going to
>>die prematurely. OK. Suppose, for the sake of argument, I assume
>>this is true? What practical results does it lead to? What actions
>>does it recommend? None -- therefore it's a foolish assumption to make.
>>
>>
>
>I gave your argument more thought. I understand it now, though it's not
>the way I normally think. It's really the argument of addiction, where
>any reality that doesn't involve getting more and more of whatever the
>addict is hooked on, is so terrofying that it's beyond comprehension.
>Thus, the notion that energy consumption can't continue to rise through
>our lifestimes, is so horrifying for you, that you are unable to face of
>acknowledge the prospect, so instead you turn to denial and take comfort
>in faith that the addiciton can be sustained without change or
>discomfort, forever.
>
>And that's really the crux of the matter. We are addicted to petroleum
>and there is no other reality that the population at large can accept,
>so we whistle and dream that someone out there, maybe God, will change
>the rules, so that we don't have to change ourselves.
>
>Jack Dingler

This completely ignores the research being done into alternative
energy sources.
You've heard of them, haven't you? Solar? Wind? Tides? Fusion? to name
a few.
If not, you *really* need to educate yourself if you're going to make
yourself heard in such a discussion.
If you have heard of them, why do you ignore them, and instead make up
such fantastic scenarios?

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
 
Big Bill wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:22:31 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>I think to believe the sort of argument that you are proposing, assumes
>>that science is still somewhat in it's infancy, that our knowledge of
>>geology, energy, materials etc..., is till relatively unformed. It
>>requires I believe that level of understanding that existed over a
>>century ago, when man was still making basic discoveries about the
>>makeup of the Earth. I think that time is long past. If there were a
>>cheap abundant and easily used energy source ready to replace the
>>fossilized energy in oil, we'd already be using it. After all, wouldn't
>>it be cheaper and more abundant than petroleum, just as petroleum is
>>cheaper and more abundant than whale oil?
>>
>>Here's a link describing ambergris and it's use as an agent in making
>>perfumes. I'm not sure what this has to do with energy and fuel.
>>http://www.netstrider.com/documents/ambergris/
>>
>>Jack Dingler
>>
>>
>
>I think you're fumbling in the dark because you want the situation
>we're in to be *somone's fault*, and they better get us a solution
>*right now*!
>Instead, try a calm understanding of the problem, and see that oil
>won't run out next year.
>Then look around at the research (theoretical as well as practical)
>that's going on now.
>Put them together, and you'll see the sky isn't falling.
>Why are you so insistant that you are the only one who can see beyond
>his nose? Why aren't *you* out there finding this new energy source?
>
>Bill Funk
>Change "g" to "a"
>

Oil will never run out. After some point, to be determined historically,
there will just be less and less to go around, until in the end, there's
none for us, but some still in the ground, never to be recovered.

It would be false to argue that oil will run out.

Right now, oil growth is no longer keeping up with population growth and
hasn't since 1987. So the quantity of oil per person has already been in
decline for this period. Once oil production peaks and goes into it's
fifty year decline, there will be less oil per person every year at an
accelerating rate.

And the research going on now hasn't significantly improved since the
1970s. Solar panels are more efficient by not enough to turn the tide.
In fact, if you look at the research going on now, it's all future
dreams stuff, just like it always has been.

Keep in mind that energy can neither be created nor destroyed but simply
converted from higher state to a lower state in the service of entropy.
There is no new source. We've exploited all of the easy stuff. And the
hard stuff, doesn't give a good return. Nothing on the order to sustain
our civilization.

And it's our nature at fault. Not someone else's. It's your fault and my
fault. It's just the way we are wired. We are helpless to change our
course and will refuse to do so until forced to.

One day we'll just have to learn to live with it. But that requires
preparation and that's not our nature. We'll go down fighting for
resources instead.

Jack Dingler
 
Matthew Russotto wrote:

>In article <45edd.278024$D%.158369@attbi_s51>,
>Jack Dingler <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I am saying that the possibility that the problem (if it exists) may
>>>be unsolvable is best ignored.
>>>
>>>
>>This is why I believe it is unsolvable. It would first require that many
>>people like yourself, admit we have a problem. That won't happen unless
>>the problem becomes severe and unavoidable. Then it's too late. We're
>>not the kind of creatures that worked to prevent disasters unless we've
>>already experienced one just like it.
>>
>>
>
>Heard of something called "The Y2K Bug"? While people certainly do
>behave as you describe quite often, it's not universal. Of course,
>usually when disaster is averted without some spectacular event
>precipitating the precautions, it's neither newsworthy nor memorable;
>the Y2K bug is an exception.
>
>
Actually, that was provable and repeatable. Engineers proved their was a
problem by setting the clocks ahead on the computers. They were able to
repeat the experiment and make the results past tense. You can't do that
with civilizations.

>>The fact that people like you can't understand or accept there is a
>>problem, much less garner the will and determination to learn more about
>>it and work to head it off, means that it will take a disaster to bring
>>folks around. As this fossil fueled civilization is a one shot deal, the
>>learning curve on this one is going to hurt. It's because of intentional
>>ignorance.
>>
>>
>
>Work to head it off? You've said it's unsolvable. If that's so, I
>can't head it off.
>
>

Exactly, you wouldn't bother if you could. Neither will billions of
other people. There's no heading it off, but setting up circumstances to
deal with it. And we're probably a couple of decades late in making any
serious changes. Enjoy the show.

>>>>For a time, I wondered how an engineer like yourself, could ignore
>>>>failure modes and design thing with the attitude that you never plan to
>>>>avoid the worst case
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I'm not an engineer. However, I note that there is a maxim in system
>>>programming that one should never test for an error condition that you
>>>don't know how to handle.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>That is the stupidest programming maxim I have ever heard of. That
>>behavior guarantees disaster.
>>
>>
>
>OK... so once you've detected the error condition you don't know how
>to handle, what do you do about it?
>

You learn how to handle it and you fix it. But your solution, the lazy
and expensive one, is one that I've been paid to repair many times. And
it's the solution preferred when running civilizations.

Jack Dingler
 
Big Bill wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:44:08 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>>If I knew, I'd be making a fortune developing it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>So would anyone else. Yet no one is.
>>
>>
>
>Right here, you demonstrate the proctologist's view of the world.
>Pull out, look around, and actually *try* to see more than your doom
>and gloom friends feed you.
>No one is working on other power/energy sources? Where do you live?
>
>Bill Funk
>Change "g" to "a"
>

Actually they are. Natural gas is running low in Texas, so the industry
is now drilling for natural gas int he suburbs.

There you have it.

But I'll call you bluff, what energy source is waiting in the wings to
replace the raw BTUs from oil and gas, and can be put into production
now? What fuel is it that can produce more power than all the systems
producing eletricity in the US today?

Your argument seems to be based on some fantasy that there's some secret
scientific group working on an exotic power source. I don't buy it.

And of course, I can't prove a negative. I can't prove that something
doesn't exist, doesn't exist.

Jack Dingler
 
Big Bill wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:29:04 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>In article <XeYcd.493496$8_6.260255@attbi_s04>,
>>>Jack Dingler <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>What's the replacement? What is this new source of energy? How soon can
>>>>we implement it? I think you assume that all problems have solutions.
>>>>It's been proven more than once in science and mathematics, that this is
>>>>a false assumption.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>So your claim remains that there is no solution and we're all going to
>>>die prematurely. OK. Suppose, for the sake of argument, I assume
>>>this is true? What practical results does it lead to? What actions
>>>does it recommend? None -- therefore it's a foolish assumption to make.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I gave your argument more thought. I understand it now, though it's not
>>the way I normally think. It's really the argument of addiction, where
>>any reality that doesn't involve getting more and more of whatever the
>>addict is hooked on, is so terrofying that it's beyond comprehension.
>>Thus, the notion that energy consumption can't continue to rise through
>>our lifestimes, is so horrifying for you, that you are unable to face of
>>acknowledge the prospect, so instead you turn to denial and take comfort
>>in faith that the addiciton can be sustained without change or
>>discomfort, forever.
>>
>>And that's really the crux of the matter. We are addicted to petroleum
>>and there is no other reality that the population at large can accept,
>>so we whistle and dream that someone out there, maybe God, will change
>>the rules, so that we don't have to change ourselves.
>>
>>Jack Dingler
>>
>>
>
>This completely ignores the research being done into alternative
>energy sources.
>You've heard of them, haven't you? Solar? Wind? Tides? Fusion? to name
>a few.
>If not, you *really* need to educate yourself if you're going to make
>yourself heard in such a discussion.
>If you have heard of them, why do you ignore them, and instead make up
>such fantastic scenarios?
>
>Bill Funk
>Change "g" to "a"
>

Show me just one example of these producing commercial power and scale
ability to the point that it can soon replace oil.

Arguing that these are going to solve energy crisis is like arguing that
a janitor's pay can put someone into the lifestyle of Donald Trump.
Without looking at the numbers, you're just engaging in fantasies here.
I have looked into them, I have seen their potential, and they fall
short way short.

I'd have to be uneducated idiot to be espousing those as viable
replacements for oil and gas, after doing the research I've done over
the last five years. This is one area where I can promise you, the
numbers and technology will disappoint you. You've been had Bud.

Jack Dingler
 
"Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:yV9dd.154375$He1.84743@attbi_s01...
>
>
> George Conklin wrote:
>
>>"Robert Haston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>"Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:XeYcd.493496$8_6.260255@attbi_s04...
>>>
>>>>I personally, have no idea what could possibly replace oil in energy
>>>>concentration and convenience. Civilization has been exploiting ever
>>>>more concentrated and convenient forms of energy since man first started
>>>>burning wood. What's the next step?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The way I like to think of it as a progression from wind and water power
>>>to wood, coal, then finally oil. Recent history has been like a party,
>>>where we went through the beer, then the wine, and are finishing the
>>>night slamming tequila shots, living it up and seeing the world through
>>>rosy booze goggles.
>>>
>>>We have always known better, but ignore it. Right now, we are starting
>>>to feel the first bad effects. Soon we will be in the toilet-gripping
>>>with dry heaves phase. Tomorrow begins the l onghangover.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You trash actual history. The whole goal of civilization has been to
>> protect us from the ravages of nature, with a life expectancy of 28
>> years at best. When transporation of food became practical with
>> railroads, the death rates began their sharp declines. It was the cheap
>> transporation of food which did it. Nature is not kind to us.
>>
>
> That is true of societies living on the margins. But an average life span
> of 28 years (excluding infant mortality), was not the norm. And it wasn't
> food that changed infant mortality, but cleaner water, better sewage
> treatment, and better medicine. With these advances, adult mortality has
> gained decade or so.
>

It WAS the norm until modern times. It was the norm in Roman times, in
Europe and in Africa and everywhere else. It was not until transportation
of food became cheap that death rates fell.



> Also, I've never heard of anyone arguing that civilization had a goal.
> That's sort of like saying that trees or tumors have goals. Perhaps pond
> scum has goals too?
>

The whole goal of societies to avoid hardship and for protection is
well-known.
 
"Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%bbdd.497481$8_6.296556@attbi_s04...
>
> "Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:yV9dd.154375$He1.84743@attbi_s01...
>
>> That is true of societies living on the margins. But an average life span
>> of 28 years (excluding infant mortality), was not the norm.
>
> There is measured data from church records in England several hundred
> years ago and from primitive tribes. The mortality curves are about the
> same. There is a sharp drop from birth to 5 years old that I think half
> the kids were still alive at 5. From 5 to 42 the chances of dying were
> the same at all ages. You had the same chance of dying for example at 20
> as you had of dying at 40.
>
> A person had a 2% chance of living to age 42. After 42 the chances of
> dying went way down and a lot of people lived a life span up into old age
> even into the 70s and 80s if not longer. The 2% living longer may have
> had a genetic advantage or possibly were the wealth / nobility with a
> better life, but that is a guess.
>
> This is what was normal for societies until the last few hundred years.
>
> The two most common causes of death were pneumonia (probably exposure,
> lack of heat, heavy pollution, etc) and infection from cuts (no bath,
> filth, etc.). Heating and baths were probably the main factors that
> increased life span for the average person.
>
> I did notice in the church grave yard in an old town type park in Va.
> (Williamsburg?) that is seemed that 55 was about the life span even for
> the wealthier people. At work we also get a lot of smokers that die in
> the 55 to 60 range. I wonder if they are both related to the heavy
> effects of high pollution from cigarettes now or bad farm environments
> back in the past
>

Correct. I can list the correlates of the demographic transition from
memory since we all cover them in the basic course. Clean water did help,
of course, as did the end of home looms and the growth of cotton which made
the washing of clothes possible. All of it was tied to economic development
which was possible when transporation was improved and made food transport
possible. In short, it was travel and energy which saved lives.
 
"Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <fEadd.497366$8_6.323212@attbi_s04>,
> Jack Dingler <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>Robert Haston <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>To me the only bright future is where we use technology to replace
>>>>waste.
>>>>There is no reason a life that consumes 20% of the energy we do now
>>>>would
>>>>not only be comfortable, but happier than the high-powered, slaves at
>>>>the
>>>>wheel, he who buys and throws away the most **** wins society.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>OK, that's one vote for shivering in the dark. (and if it ain't, show
>>>me where I can eliminate 80% of energy consumption and still be
>>>comfortable).
>>>
>>
>>I thought you were an engineer. :)
>
> Nope. But I can do math, and I can see I can't eliminate 80% of my
> personal energy consumption without sweltering in the heat and
> shivering in the cold. That is, turning off my A/C and heat entirely
> would be
> necessary (though not sufficient) to reduce my energy consumption by
> that amount.

You would have to change your diet to eliminate meat and to eat mostly
grains directly. But then you would not be able to earn a living unless
your boss made you live in the office after hours or in the basement, and
you stopped washing your clothes but once a month. And you would need to
stop all heating as well as air conditioning of your room in the basement
and rely on thermal averaging, i.e. like living in a hole. You would need
to stop using a toilet and use a outhouse, and wipe your butt with your left
hand, like they used to do. If you urinated on a compost pile, you could
get rid of fertilizer.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Big Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:29:04 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>And that's really the crux of the matter. We are addicted to petroleum
>>and there is no other reality that the population at large can accept,
>>so we whistle and dream that someone out there, maybe God, will change
>>the rules, so that we don't have to change ourselves.
>
>This completely ignores the research being done into alternative
>energy sources.
>You've heard of them, haven't you? Solar? Wind? Tides? Fusion? to name
>a few.
>If not, you *really* need to educate yourself if you're going to make
>yourself heard in such a discussion.
>If you have heard of them, why do you ignore them, and instead make up
>such fantastic scenarios?

At one point Jack opined that even if we were to build the
alternatives as fast as we could, we don't have enough oil left to
provide the energy to build sufficient alternatives. So it's not
clear what he's suggesting we DO do, aside from lay down and die.
 
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:45:06 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:44:08 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>If I knew, I'd be making a fortune developing it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>So would anyone else. Yet no one is.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Right here, you demonstrate the proctologist's view of the world.
>>Pull out, look around, and actually *try* to see more than your doom
>>and gloom friends feed you.
>>No one is working on other power/energy sources? Where do you live?
>>
>>Bill Funk
>>Change "g" to "a"
>>
>
>Actually they are. Natural gas is running low in Texas, so the industry
>is now drilling for natural gas int he suburbs.
>
>There you have it.

There I have what?
You don't really think that's it as far as searching for alternative
means of energy, do you?
If so, you're more stupid than I thought.
>
>But I'll call you bluff, what energy source is waiting in the wings to
>replace the raw BTUs from oil and gas, and can be put into production
>now? What fuel is it that can produce more power than all the systems
>producing eletricity in the US today?

Ah, moving the goalposts. Did your doom & gloom (D&G for short, as
we'll probably use that term a lot) friends tell you to add that?
Why can't you think for yourself instead of merely repeating what your
D&G friends tell you?
Why does it need to be an exact BTU replacement? Why can't we also
work on conservation & waste reduction?
And why "now"? Aren't you paying attention? Oil isn't running out by
the end of November. Or even next year. There's time to do this right.
>
>Your argument seems to be based on some fantasy that there's some secret
>scientific group working on an exotic power source. I don't buy it.

I never even hinted that it's secret.
I will say, though, that it's obviously a surprise to you, because you
haven't been even trying to see if your D&G friends are right.

Here's a start:
http://www.google.com/search?q=alte...ient=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
Or, because you seem to have trouble actually using the internet:
http://tinyurl.com/53uxc
>
>And of course, I can't prove a negative. I can't prove that something
>doesn't exist, doesn't exist.

You just make the claim, though.
You claim that there's no research being done, because *you* don't
know about it.
Have you put yourself in a position where those doing the research
report to you? I seriously doubt that.
Learn. Educate yourself.
>
>Jack Dingler

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
 
Matthew Russotto wrote:

>At one point Jack opined that even if we were to build the
>alternatives as fast as we could, we don't have enough oil left to
>provide the energy to build sufficient alternatives. So it's not
>clear what he's suggesting we DO do, aside from lay down and die.
>
>
>

The only alternatives would come from an acceptance of what e have to
deal with.

It's the faith in the mythology of oil that is in fact the single
biggest impediment to planning a course to mitigate the worst effects.

And it's the myths that I'm arguing against here. You Matthew have
admitted that you really don't know anything about the energy crisis.
You don't know the numbers, you don't know what anyone's projections
are. You have instead a faith that you view is the correct one. And you
share this mythos when billions of other people. It comes from stories
repeated back and forth, without question. Stories and tales told by
friends, relatives, folks at the gas station, on the news media, in the
movies and reiterated by politicians that believe the same myths.

Not one of you from what I can tell has the capacity to actually
research and understand any of the public data available to prove or
disprove my assertions. I've posted links pointing to some real world
events that bolster my points and they go ignored. Until you folks
cultivate the capability educate youselves on this issue, your left
doing nothing but arguing a religious belief system that has oil at it's
center. And it will remain a faith issue, likely well into the downturn,
as you can always blame Satan for not letting the US have the infinite
oil supplies in Saudi Arabia.

What's sad is that the biggest crisis of modern times is making it's
presence felt now, and all you folks can do is play ostrich.

The short term solution of killing people and stealing their oil will
keep SUVs running for a while, but as it continues, unemployment must
keep rising, as oil can only support so many jobs. If you want to keep
it a religious and faith based argument, then watch for the signs. An
economic downturn in 2005, more jobs lost, acceleration of events in the
Mid-East...

Keep the faith, maybe God will refill the Saudi Arabian oil fields and
give the US a mandate to kill Arabs and take the fields. It might happen!

Jack Dingler
 
In article <3Vfdd.211841$wV.180456@attbi_s54>, Jack Dingler wrote:

> then watch for the signs. An
> economic downturn in 2005, more jobs lost, acceleration of events in the
> Mid-East...

Even with infinite oil supplies both of these are likely. The first
because jobs will continue to move from the USA to china,india,et al. The
second because that's where the oil is, infinite in supply or not.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
H. M. Leary <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Road zombies. They need to wake up, and slow down.
>
>Or maybe just hang up!

Driving to work is boring enough with a cell phone. If I regularly commuted
by car I'd need a DVD or book to occupy me.

--
<a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/">Home Page</a>
Life is a terminal sexually transmitted disease.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back