Cities Turning to Bicycles



Robert Haston <[email protected]> wrote:

> Solar has yet to be a serious contender, although solar panel plants in
> hellaciously windy areas, such as the Aleutians make far better sense than
> hydrogen as an energy carrier.


Yeah, solar power in the Aleutians would be really great. On Shemya,
you can see the sun about 10 days a year.
 
"Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote
> Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
>>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.


I'm curious why you make this statement. AFAIK (and I have a BS EE
degree from a college that specializes in Power), the actual *transmission*
of electricity from one place to another is about the most efficient system
man has ever devised and built. For instance, transformers are around
99% efficient, and are the most efficient *machine* that mankind has
ever constructed. Even the conversion of AC to DC (for very long-distance
transmission) and back is pretty efficient: it's done to eliminate the
losses
in transmission lines due to EMF/transmission line losses, which is already
small compared to the power transmitted.

Even the AC generators are reasonably efficient in conversion of
rotational energy to electricity. Thermal powerplants are only in
the 40% range: is that what you're thinking of?

Floyd
 
Big Bill wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:45:06 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>
>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.
>


Moving the goal posts? What the heck are you talking about. The crux of
my argument hasn't changed. Did you get my posts mixed up with someone
else's? Or are you not reading what I write?

How much time do you think it takes? I think we're in for a fifty year
decline. During the decline, I think it will be impossible to build the
infrastructure required to replace oil. The best I think we can hope for
is small community changes in midst of chaos.

At this time, global oil production might be past it's peak. We may be
in the decline now. The short term numbers are adding up that way. But
only a historical assessment a few years down the road will tell us for
sure.

And in the future, if there's one well, pumping a few pints a day, then
clearly we haven''t run out. There's a great deal of fun in playing with
semantics on the topic. Since some of the oil will always be
unrecoverable, we'll never run out. We won't have any, but the planet
will. Just like the world never ran out of dodo birds or passenger
pigeons. There's still some stuffed ones in museums. See, we never ran
out! Word games in the oil mythos are cool!

>>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
>>
>>

Dude, those aren't going to keep civilization growing past the oil age.
They can't be scaled to that degree. You're still arguing that a
janitor's pay can give someone a Donald Trump lifestyle.

And no, I never moved the goal posts. My argument has stayed the same.
There is no ready replacement for oil waiting in the wings. There is no
energy source, even the old tried and true wind and solar technologies,
much less some science fiction option, waiting in the wings, that can
replace the BTUs in oil and provide the 2% per annum growth that oil
once enjoyed.

If you think the technologies you've linked above, solar, wind, biomass,
can be scaled to replace oil, then you have no idea what that scale is.
If these people are really reporting to you, if you really employ these
people, then get them to educate you on energy conversion units. I've
never been a mid level manager, I've always been a math, sciences and
engineering guy. Unlike you, I don't need other people to do my homework
for me. I have skills to do the math and conversions myself.

As an experiment, have one of your engineers, draw up the rough
calculations for how much one of these systems would have to be scaled
up to produce that same energy as is consumed in oil and natural gas
everyday.

Jack Dingler
 
Brent P wrote:

>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.
>
>
>

What's pushing the job flight?

For manufacturing, the increasing costs of natural gas appear to be the
number one reason. Mathew Simmons, and advisor to the White House is
going around giving lectures, advising businesses to move before it runs
out of the US.

Do you think there's a different reason?

Jack Dingler
 
I hope you guys are right. I can't find any evidence you are, and you
haven't made a case for your beliefs. All the evidence I've researched
over the last five years, just keeps looking more and more pessimistic.

So let's just hope you are. I think the next ten years will tell.

Good luck.

Jack Dingler
 
In article <HKgdd.286918$3l3.42606@attbi_s03>, Jack Dingler wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>>In article <3Vfdd.211841$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.


> What's pushing the job flight?


Those that fund democrats and republicans.

> For manufacturing, the increasing costs of natural gas appear to be the
> number one reason.


Labor rates.

> Mathew Simmons, and advisor to the White House is
> going around giving lectures, advising businesses to move before it runs
> out of the US.


> Do you think there's a different reason?


Labor rates. Let's see pay an engineer 70K+ before benefits in the USA
or $300 a month in China with no benefits? It's even worse for people on
the factory floor without an education. Labor rates are the big savings.

Natural gas savings is only applicable to some industries. For others it
just doesn't matter much if at all and those are going to china et al too.
 
In article <kuhdd.499250$8_6.475274@attbi_s04>, Jack Dingler wrote:
> I hope you guys are right. I can't find any evidence you are, and you
> haven't made a case for your beliefs. All the evidence I've researched
> over the last five years, just keeps looking more and more pessimistic.
>
> So let's just hope you are. I think the next ten years will tell.


Is this an appendix to your reply to me? I didn't say one thing or the
other, only that you picked two things that are likely to happen
regardless of how much oil there is and stated that if they happen it
proves you're right about oil supply. But since both events could happen
regardless of the remaining oil supply, it's hardly proof.
 
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.


I didn't suggest moving. That's your framing.
 
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Big Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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."
>

Passive solar and thermal sinks take care of sweltering and shivering.
That's today's technology and working examples abound.
 
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"RJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1glx1bq.1s6s16o1huuy9wN%[email protected]...
> Robert Haston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Solar has yet to be a serious contender, although solar panel plants in
> > hellaciously windy areas, such as the Aleutians make far better sense

than
> > hydrogen as an energy carrier.

>
> Yeah, solar power in the Aleutians would be really great. On Shemya,
> you can see the sun about 10 days a year.


Think about it - the Eskimos manage quite well without electricity, oil,
gas, furnaces, etc.
 
RJ wrote:
>
> Robert Haston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Solar has yet to be a serious contender, although solar panel plants in
> > hellaciously windy areas, such as the Aleutians make far better sense than
> > hydrogen as an energy carrier.

>
> Yeah, solar power in the Aleutians would be really great. On Shemya,
> you can see the sun about 10 days a year.


I believe he was talking about packaging the energy from wind turbines
into solar panels in order to ship that energy elsewhere. An answer to the
question of where the energy to make solar panels would come from in
a non-petroleum economy. Shipping the panels to Death Valley might be a bit
of a problem in a post-petroleum world.

Mitch.
 
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:35:44 GMT, "George Conklin"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.


An interesting idea, but somewhat at odds with the Biblical notional
lifespan of three score and ten; average life expectancy is only 10%
above that even now. And (on-topic) regular cyclists have a higher
average life expectancy than those who rely more heavily on
oil-powered transport :)

You can't claim the benefits without acknowledging the costs here, I
think.

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 <3Vfdd.211841$wV.180456@attbi_s54>,
Jack Dingler <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>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.


Which is what? We're soon going to run out of fossil energy and have to
make do with what we can get from wind, water, and animal power?

>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.


Such an occurence would be an unmitigatable disaster.

>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 seem more interested in attacking me than demonstrating your case.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
fbloogyudsr <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote
>> Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>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.

>
>I'm curious why you make this statement. AFAIK (and I have a BS EE
>degree from a college that specializes in Power), the actual *transmission*
>of electricity from one place to another is about the most efficient system
>man has ever devised and built. For instance, transformers are around
>99% efficient, and are the most efficient *machine* that mankind has
>ever constructed. Even the conversion of AC to DC (for very long-distance
>transmission) and back is pretty efficient: it's done to eliminate the
>losses
>in transmission lines due to EMF/transmission line losses, which is already
>small compared to the power transmitted.


I've seen figures for transmission and distribution losses from 20% to
50%. I'm no power systems engineer, though.
 
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:18:49 -0700, "fbloogyudsr"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Electric_power_transmission
>and
>http://www.caddet.org/technologies/search.php?id=25
>
>characterize transmission losses as well below 10%.
>However, IIRC, losses in a pumped-storage facility run in the
>40%-60% range... Perhaps that what you remember.


Possibly thinking of overall thermal efficiency? That would be
consistent.

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?" <[email protected]> wrote
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:18:49 -0700, "fbloogyudsr"
>>http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Electric_power_transmission
>>and
>>http://www.caddet.org/technologies/search.php?id=25
>>
>>characterize transmission losses as well below 10%.
>>However, IIRC, losses in a pumped-storage facility run in the
>>40%-60% range... Perhaps that what you remember.

>
> Possibly thinking of overall thermal efficiency? That would be
> consistent.


Only for a thermal (coal, oil, gas, nuclear) plant - hydro, solar,
wind and others have far different efficiencies.

Floyd
 
"Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"RJ" <[email protected]> wrote
>> Robert Haston <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Solar has yet to be a serious contender, although solar panel plants in
>> > hellaciously windy areas, such as the Aleutians make far better sense than
>> > hydrogen as an energy carrier.


Hydrogen is much more efficient to transport.

>> Yeah, solar power in the Aleutians would be really great. On Shemya,
>> you can see the sun about 10 days a year.


The point is that wind provides the power...

>Think about it - the Eskimos manage quite well without electricity, oil,
>gas, furnaces, etc.


Where's that at? You must have a time machine, because nobody I know has
done without all of the above for about 40 years now.

--
FloydL. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) [email protected]
 
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:37:01 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:45:06 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>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.
>>

>
>Moving the goal posts? What the heck are you talking about. The crux of
>my argument hasn't changed. Did you get my posts mixed up with someone
>else's? Or are you not reading what I write?


Yes, moving he goalposts.
You're now demanding something you didn't ask for before.
I'm sure you see it as only better defining you rposition, but you've
changed it into something else.
Calling my bluff? I gave URLs; did you even look at them at all?
>
>How much time do you think it takes? I think we're in for a fifty year
>decline. During the decline, I think it will be impossible to build the
>infrastructure required to replace oil. The best I think we can hope for
>is small community changes in midst of chaos.


What *you* think seems to carry a lot of weight with you.
What credentials do you bring to the conversation to trump the URLs I
gave to show that the research is being done right now?
>
>At this time, global oil production might be past it's peak. We may be
>in the decline now. The short term numbers are adding up that way. But
>only a historical assessment a few years down the road will tell us for
>sure.
>
>And in the future, if there's one well, pumping a few pints a day, then
>clearly we haven''t run out. There's a great deal of fun in playing with
>semantics on the topic. Since some of the oil will always be
>unrecoverable, we'll never run out. We won't have any, but the planet
>will. Just like the world never ran out of dodo birds or passenger
>pigeons. There's still some stuffed ones in museums. See, we never ran
>out! Word games in the oil mythos are cool!


I'm not playing with semantics; nice attempt at a strawman.
Where, specifically, did I suggest that we'd never need an alternative
to oil?
>
>>>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
>>>
>>>

>Dude, those aren't going to keep civilization growing past the oil age.
>They can't be scaled to that degree. You're still arguing that a
>janitor's pay can give someone a Donald Trump lifestyle.


Um, I said that?
Instead, I said (and gave a link so that you could do your own
research on the matter) that research is being done now on what will
replace oil.
You are refusing to recognize reality. I'm not sure what you have to
gain from this, except that maybe you feel your investment in G&D is
so large that it must be advanced in the face of reality.
>
>And no, I never moved the goal posts. My argument has stayed the same.
>There is no ready replacement for oil waiting in the wings. There is no
>energy source, even the old tried and true wind and solar technologies,
>much less some science fiction option, waiting in the wings, that can
>replace the BTUs in oil and provide the 2% per annum growth that oil
>once enjoyed.


If, by "in the wings" you mean ready to go now, yes, you've moved the
goalposts, because that's not the point; the point is, very plainly,
that we have many years of oil production left, and research to find a
replacement energy source in underway as we write. We ar enot going to
suddenly find that we have no energy because of a natural shortage of
oil.
>
>If you think the technologies you've linked above, solar, wind, biomass,
>can be scaled to replace oil, then you have no idea what that scale is.
>If these people are really reporting to you, if you really employ these
>people, then get them to educate you on energy conversion units. I've
>never been a mid level manager, I've always been a math, sciences and
>engineering guy. Unlike you, I don't need other people to do my homework
>for me. I have skills to do the math and conversions myself.


I did no tlimit myself to any technology. That's your bag.
And your self-evidentiary skills are in denial of reality. Withiout
the ability to see beyond your own prejudices, those skills only work
on the data you want to work with, and not that data which falls
outside your own rather limited view.
Sorry, them's the facts.

>
>As an experiment, have one of your engineers, draw up the rough
>calculations for how much one of these systems would have to be scaled
>up to produce that same energy as is consumed in oil and natural gas
>everyday.


What engineers do you claim to be *mine*?
To play your silly game, there is an energy source that's ready to
take a large part of oil's part right now; it's been demonstrated to
be safe in applications around the globe, but has been denied because
of people like you who can't see well because of a rectal-cranial
inversion. You cry that D&G is upon us, and fail to recognize what's
really going on. Look around, and see.
>
>Jack Dingler


Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> An interesting idea, but somewhat at odds with the Biblical notional
> lifespan of three score and ten; average life expectancy is only 10%
> above that even now.


Hard to tell from old writings. We know that in cultures without birth
records and where the old are venerated, people commonly exaggerate their
age more and more as they get older. It is also possible with a warmer
climate in the mid east religious centers life was extended with better
health and the cultures insisted on a clean body. Again, just my guess.

Life span could mean several things. At this time the human life span is
120 years in the sense that 120 is essentially the oldest anyone lives.

And (on-topic) regular cyclists have a higher
> average life expectancy than those who rely more heavily on
> oil-powered transport :)


Actually there has been recent discussions on this topic in uk.transport
from data collected in Great Brittan. The data shows that car drivers live
longer than transit users. Part of the cause appears to be that higher
income people live longer than low income people.

Don't think they say anything about bikes. The exercise from bikes will
produce little life extension. The exercise will make you feel better and
give you a better chance of being health into old age as long as you
continue to exercise. Of course the bike is not relevant. Exercise is what
is important.

I personally use a professional grade trampoline in my back yard which I
consider better exercise than riding my bike. I live across the street from
the SF Bay shoreline where there is a bike path that does not cross roads,
but I still prefer the trampoline.