Is it possible to live in America without a car?



"Bill Baka" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>R Brickston wrote:


> I would easily be a better politician than 95% of them in office now.


You could not be elected because you are a thinking engineer. Thinking in
politics is not acceptable (seriously). You must speak only the clichés
the public wants to hear if you want to get elected.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"oilfreeandhappy" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Seems to be the unending thread, and it's resorted to this same tired
> argument of "cycling is no better than cars, because it takes a lot of
> energy in some form or another to power/manufacture the bicycle".


This is a total non-issue. People who use that argument are engaging in
a red herring. They're like the people who say you can't really be vegan
because animals die in grain threshers. It's just nonsensical.

--
*Help Animals, the Earth and Your Health! *
*Find out how:* www.VeganStarterPack.com <http://www.veganstarterpack.com/>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Bill Baka" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >R Brickston wrote:

>
> > I would easily be a better politician than 95% of them in office
> > now.

>
> You could not be elected because you are a thinking engineer.
> Thinking in politics is not acceptable (seriously). You must speak
> only the clichés the public wants to hear if you want to get elected.


True insofar as the voting public largely is the "base" to the right and
the left, and as J.K. Galbraith points out, the purpose of ideology is
to avoid having to exercise critical thought. Twenty minutes of
listening to Limbaugh or O'Reilly provides ample proof of the
Galbraith's statement.
 
Bill wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>> Jack May wrote:
>>
>>> Tell us exactly which battery technology can produce a practical
>>> electric car in winter in the US. Nobody else knows the answer to
>>> that question.

>>
>> Lithium based batteries do well in cold temperatures, retaining about
>> 90% of their capacity at -20 C. You wouldn't want to use a nickel
>> based battery in sub-freezing temperatures.
>>
>> See "http://nordicgroup.us/battery/temper.gif"
>>
>> In any case, no one is saying that all climates will be appropriate
>> for an electric car. In the temperate climates NiMH batteries can be
>> used.

>
> Just use the battery or even a pull cord to start a 5 HP engine to
> charge the battery and circulate warm coolant through the main engine.
> I am totally amazed that nobody has come up with something so blatantly
> simple. Is the world really that full of stupid people?


It's not the cold engine that's the problem, it's the cold battery.

And of course the other problem is that a 5HP engine is not sufficient
to charge the battery in real-time.

The plug-in hybrid system for the Prius uses Li-Ion batteries, which can
run the vehicle for about 50 miles before the gasoline engine is
needed (at speeds up to 55 mph). MPG, not including the cost of the
electricity to charge the battery, is between 100-200 MPG. The downside
is the cost. If Toyota produced it as an option it would probably add
about $2000 to the cost of the Prius, as an add-on it costs about $12,000.
 
"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:47:39 -0700, "Baxter"
> <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>-
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> an honest to goodness climate scientist, says it ain't necessarily the

>>truth.
>>> He say's that most of Gore's scientific hoarde is more about predicting

>>the
>>> _results_ of a global warming episode than about predicting the

>>_likelyhood_ of
>>> a global warming episode, or whether we have anything to do with it or

>>whether
>>> there's anything we could do about it.

>>
>>Reputable Climate Scientists say the likelihood of a global warming
>>episode
>>is 100%.

>
> Sure...
>
> but how much if it did _we_ cause and how much of it did natural forces
> cause?
>
> And... if we stopped all emissions completely, would the temperature then
> continue to rise anyway, or not?
>
> DPH
>>


The same predictions could have been made accurately 10,000 years ago as the
last ice melted from Long Island. So?
 
"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Bill Baka" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >R Brickston wrote:

>>
>> > I would easily be a better politician than 95% of them in office
>> > now.

>>
>> You could not be elected because you are a thinking engineer.
>> Thinking in politics is not acceptable (seriously). You must speak
>> only the clichés the public wants to hear if you want to get elected.

>
> True insofar as the voting public largely is the "base" to the right and
> the left, and as J.K. Galbraith points out, the purpose of ideology is
> to avoid having to exercise critical thought. Twenty minutes of
> listening to Limbaugh or O'Reilly provides ample proof of the
> Galbraith's statement.


Galbraith in fact had is own strong ideology, whether you like it or not is
not the issue.
 
SMS wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> SMS wrote:
>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tell us exactly which battery technology can produce a practical
>>>> electric car in winter in the US. Nobody else knows the answer to
>>>> that question.
>>>
>>> Lithium based batteries do well in cold temperatures, retaining about
>>> 90% of their capacity at -20 C. You wouldn't want to use a nickel
>>> based battery in sub-freezing temperatures.
>>>
>>> See "http://nordicgroup.us/battery/temper.gif"
>>>
>>> In any case, no one is saying that all climates will be appropriate
>>> for an electric car. In the temperate climates NiMH batteries can be
>>> used.

>>
>> Just use the battery or even a pull cord to start a 5 HP engine to
>> charge the battery and circulate warm coolant through the main engine.
>> I am totally amazed that nobody has come up with something so
>> blatantly simple. Is the world really that full of stupid people?

>
> It's not the cold engine that's the problem, it's the cold battery.
>
> And of course the other problem is that a 5HP engine is not sufficient
> to charge the battery in real-time.
>
> The plug-in hybrid system for the Prius uses Li-Ion batteries, which can
> run the vehicle for about 50 miles before the gasoline engine is needed
> (at speeds up to 55 mph). MPG, not including the cost of the electricity
> to charge the battery, is between 100-200 MPG. The downside is the cost.
> If Toyota produced it as an option it would probably add about $2000 to
> the cost of the Prius, as an add-on it costs about $12,000.


I believe the second engine technique is used in some large bulldozers
and other huge earth moving equipment to pre-warm things a bit but the
engine is more like about a 20 HP gas engine. Ever try to start a diesel
that has been sitting at -30 overnight? That gave me the idea here, and
5 HP may not provide enough to charge in real time but would provide
some heat as it provided charge. We are talking about Minnesota nights
and eastern nights where some people just don't bother to put their car
in the garage or have their garage full of stuff.
The Prius is still far from perfect, although, as some have pointed out
batteries are near the end term of development and just about all
chemistries have been tried. All I expect in the future are small
increments, as with the Ultra capacitors that can pack almost as much
charge as a battery. I was also talking about maybe 35 MPH for 20 miles
in really freezing weather in this sub thread, since in below 0 F the
roads are usually not conducive to 55 MPH nor bicycles, total fanatics
excluded.
Here in California the mere cost of electricity makes a pure electric
impractical with the rates starting at over $0.12/KWh and going up at
every increment of 500 KWh. My dad retired in Arkansas and when I was
there the bill started out at 4 cents a KWh and then went down to 3
cents. Nuclear. The first 4 cents was mostly a paperwork charge. Where
he lived a totally electric car would have been practical, but not at
California rates.
It is all a guessing game at this point anyway since I have no idea
whether either the car makers or lawmakers will do something intelligent
in the near future. Not likely, just a maybe.
Bill Baka
 
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 20:37:00 -0700, "Jack May" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Aluminum produces a range I think that is 1.5 times greater than gasoline
>for the same tank size. Another metal produces a range six times longer
>than gasoline.


Metals do have a ferocious energy content. But like hydrogen, it is
questionable whether they are fuels, or energy storage and
transportation media.
When you are at a fireworks display, and see the bright small flash,
and a few seconds later hear and feel the explosion from the flash
charge, you are just seeing the energy that Niagara Falls (Etc) put
into that 100 milligrams of aluminum, all coming out at once.
The Space Shuttle boosters use AP and aluminum..there certainly is a
lot of energy there, but once again, some industrial operations, Hall
Process electrolytic reactors, nuclear or coal or hydro power plants
upstream, are all involved, using and eating up energy at every step.
When aluminum is burned, it goes to the oxide (Sapphire, Alumina)
which is used as an industrial abrasive. In the submicron sizes, it
is used to lap some optical materials and metals, polishing gemstones,
etc.etc, so the service life of an engine or turbine using an aluminum
aerosol would be "As the life of a May fly".
Iron oxide makes a good metal polish also. Lithium is highly
energetic, but produces a base that corrodes aluminum, etc, So these
probably are not going to end up being used in engines, unless we go
back to steam. (Not an entirely bad idea, as low pressure combustions
do not produce the NOx emissions.)
But that brings us away from the hydrogen "Hindeneburg" scenario to
the "Exploding Mississippi Steamboat" one.
<humor>
Most bicyclists are painfully aware of the stupidity of some drivers.
Some should not even be trusted with gasoline..
Hydrogen, steam boilers, etc could interfere with their all-important
cellphone conversations, and generate a Darwinian Lemming Rush of
historic proportions..
</humor>
 
Jack May wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>> An hour a day certainly does limit the range of a bike.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Actually in the USA people want to limit their travel time to one-half
>>> hour.
>>> We have. The average commute is 20 minutes, more or less.

>> Sure about that? It sounds like science fiction...

>
> We are extremely sure about that. It is reality. This fact has been proven
> all over the world and even appeared in Scientific American in the 90's.
> The hour is the total travel time per day on average and the average commute
> is about 20 minutes each way
>
>

Total ****. I lived in the Bay Area and to live where housing was even
remotely affordable (1970's) I had to live about 25 miles from work.
That 25 miles took me about an hour and a half each way, mostly parked.
Bicycle routes? Forget that. Reality is that if you work and live in
Silicon Valley about 2-3 hours of your day are spent in the car,
basically parked with the engine running to power the air or your killer
stereo. I gave up working down there since it was impossible to even go
to lunch a half mile away and get back with your fast food order in less
than an hour. We usually just gave up and ate total junk off the roach
coach. Chicago now has Metra-rail which goes out like the spokes of a
wheel and has taken urban sprawl to a whole new level. Trains run out to
50 or 60 miles of the hub at 70 MPH plus and don't stop until they get
there. These expresses are a major source of news since there is always
some dimwit trying to beat the train and getting killed, almost on a
weekly basis.
Bill Baka
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> Bill <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Specialized wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:28:20 -0700, "Jack May" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:

>
>> I don't want to start another flame war but Hydrogen only freezes at
>> absolute zero and has to be really damn cold just to become a liquid.
>> Anybody that thinks this stuff is safe is not thinking with a full deck.

>
> Metallic hydrogen has been produce at a temperature
> of several thousand kelvins, although at a pressure of over a million
> atmospheres. Under normal conditions, the melting point is
> 14.175 K.
>
> For details, try <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_hydrogen>
> and <http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/H.html>.
>
> Whether the risks will eventually prove to be managable is an open
> question.
>
>

A million atmospheres to keep Hydrogen solid? That is only 15 million
PSI, readily achievable in a laboratory with a ten ton pressure vessel,
but not likely in cars. Even at 14.75 K the cryogenics involved would be
a big challenge since cryo bottles have a big tendency to break. Ever
drop your favorite Thermos?
Same deal but imagine a major traffic crash. That is something I would
avoid and not try to be a hero and save the guy in the Hydrogen powered car.
Bill Baka
 
Dave Head wrote:
> but how much if it did _we_ cause and how much of it did natural forces cause?
>
> And... if we stopped all emissions completely, would the temperature then
> continue to rise anyway, or not?


Probably not. And terrorism won't rise either.

Waste is behind both Global Warming and Terrorism. Dropping the MPG by
7.7 miles average would allow us to drop oil imports from the Middle
East.

So RIDING BIKES would save us from going to the Moon.
 
Tim McNamara wrote:
> According to the Census Bureau, the rate of population increase has been
> increasingly greater than at any other time in known human history.
> Yeast-like is not an inaccurate description.


The humanoids in 'The Matrix' called us "a virus." But I think some of
us are predatory virus and others harmless virus.
 
Jack May wrote:
> > Not those of ordinary BIG FAT AMERICANS who are too lazy to drive
> > anything but an Stupid Unnecessary Vehicle. But as a matter of fact,
> > THEY WOULD BE THE FIRST TO BENEFIT FROM IT --BURN THE CALORIES, BIMBO!

>
> As usual you don't have a god damn idea of what you are talking about.
> People have rejected your nonsense bike ideas and you no idea how to
> produce a solution that people will want to use.
>
> That just makes you a dumb failure, not a problem solver.


And you are too stressed out. You need a vacation, say to Key West. But
please pay attention to how civilized people is down there, and HOW
THEY MOVE AROUND, and how relaxed they are. ;)
 
Jack May wrote:
> >>So, the middle classes and upper classes benefited from tax cuts, and
> >>education and healthcare budgets have increased while a massive war
> >>spenditure war is taking place and yet the poor have not been taxed.
> >>Are you saying 2+2=5?

>
> It does no good. donquijote1954 is just and ignorant nut case that thinks
> everybody is evil except of course him.


SUVs are evil, cyclists are good. Just kidding, but we need more of the
latter.
 
donquijote1954 wrote:
> Dave Head wrote:
>> but how much if it did _we_ cause and how much of it did natural forces cause?
>>
>> And... if we stopped all emissions completely, would the temperature then
>> continue to rise anyway, or not?

>
> Probably not. And terrorism won't rise either.
>
> Waste is behind both Global Warming and Terrorism. Dropping the MPG by
> 7.7 miles average would allow us to drop oil imports from the Middle
> East.
>
> So RIDING BIKES would save us from going to the Moon.
>

Duh, you guys,
The sun might be getting just a little warmer as it does over thousands
of years. Sunspots go on an 11 year cycle so why not expect other
activities from the sun?
Bill Baka
 
Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Bill Baka" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >R Brickston wrote:

>>
>> > I would easily be a better politician than 95% of them in office
>> > now.

>>
>> You could not be elected because you are a thinking engineer.
>> Thinking in politics is not acceptable (seriously). You must speak
>> only the clichés the public wants to hear if you want to get elected.

>
>True insofar as the voting public largely is the "base" to the right and
>the left, and as J.K. Galbraith points out, the purpose of ideology is
>to avoid having to exercise critical thought.


It's a lot more complex than that, though there are proponents of
ideologies that do fall into the "blind acceptance" category, but
they're usually the ones who rabidly insist on avoiding media sources
that might present an alternative view to their position. Equally
true for big fans of Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh.

That said, winning an election requires energizing not only the right
or left edge of the voters, but mainly in swaying the middle 10% one
way or the other.

> Twenty minutes of
>listening to Limbaugh or O'Reilly provides ample proof of the
>Galbraith's statement.


Good examples, but Michael Moore or Al Franken would be equally good.

Wouldn't it be great if all election discussions and debates included
only independently verifiable facts without spin or distortion (such
as leaving out details that make the "facts" appear to support
something other than the truth).

Ideally, this would work by having all debates moderated by someone
like the editors at the www.factcheck.org website, who could throw a
wet towel over about 80% of the political hype and hysteria during an
election season. ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:


>> 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
>> All households 67.8% 67.9% 68.3% 69.0% 68.9%
>> Whites (2) 74.3 74.7 75.4 76.0 75.8
>> Blacks 47.7 47.4 48.1 49.1 48.2
>> Hispanics 47.3 47.0 46.7 48.1 49.5
>> Asians/other 54.2 54.5 56.0 58.6 59.2
>>
>> Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau.

>
>So the trend is basically flat across the whole range, with a slight
>improvement for Hispanics and Asians (and "others?"). In 2000, the
>overall numbers were 68.7% owner-occupied and and 31.3% rental, so the
>first few years of the Bush Administration saw a decline in home
>ownership followed by some recovery in this area. So Jobst wasn't so
>far wrong and you are- barely- right (by .2%). Just goes to show that
>most political claims are mainly how the baloney is sliced.


You certainly prove your last sentence by somehow trying to twist
those statistics to show that (somehow) the housing trend isn't good.
You're slicing baloney and comparing it to sliced ham. ;-)

I'm not sure where you get your 68.7% number, but unless it's measured
the same way, and ideally by the US Dept. of Commerce, it's not
directly comparable. Obviously that's NOT the case, since the website
I got my facts from DO have a listing (in a separate format) that
shows the actual overall trends (by region, and by total).

Sorry, but the numbers in 2001 are better than those for 2000. See
for yourself:

http://www.financialservicesfacts.org/financial2/mortgage/homeown/

Home ownership overall:
1990 58.0%
1995 59.2%
1996 59.2%
1997 59.6%
1998 60.5%
1999 60.9%
2000 61.7%
2001 62.6%
2002 62.5%
2003 63.4%
2004 64.2%
2005 64.4%

So instead of a "drop during the fist years of the Bush administration
followed by a modest 0.2% increase" the facts support a very
significant 3.7% increase during that time.

That is a big difference from the claims that started this exchange
-one that is somehow "common knowledge" but entirely inaccurate.

Mark "just the facts" Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
"Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> One of the things you'll learn if you read all the links is that JUST
>> the new coal-fired power plants planned in China will MORE than offset
>> the theoretical gain if all the Kyoto signers actually did what they
>> said they would (which they aren't, BTW).

>
>So, because of what China MIGHT do, we should just keep polluting as we
>always have (and in fact worse since Bush -lowered- EPA standards)?


Let me reprhase that in terms you might get...

Why create an enormous economic hardship on the US people and
instustry, and a corresponding economic advantage for China and India
to combat something that's show to be a non-issue in the overall
global warming scenario (CO2 in the atmosphere)?

I know it's a lot easier to jump on the "sky is falling bandwagon" and
assume that a very slight rise in CO2 will end the world as we know
it. OTOH, it will show that you're not studying the facts, not even
those presented by the pro-Kyoto camp.

Your call...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:


>> So while the Bush act will actually reduce mercury emissions by about
>> 70%, the website you supplied claims:
>>
>> "The Bush administration plan delays any mercury reductions to 2010.
>> It allows power plants to spew more than 5 times more mercury
>> pollution each year from 2010 through 2017, and 3 times more
>> mercury emissions every year after."
>>
>> Now, someone reading JUST that, without undestanding the context would
>> naturally think that Bush actually allows MORE pollution. But I guess
>> that's the point of a website like that, huh?

>
>I think that's the conclusion, yes. It seems to be the reason why every
>major environmental group is against the proposal.


And of course, there couldn't POSSIBLY be a political component in
play there, right? ;-)

An alalogy that is at least slightly bike-related.

Say I'm the Democrat mayor of Podunk, IA. Bike groups have been after
me for the last eight years to put in some bike lanes, but I haven't
done anything.

An election rolls through, during which my vice-Mayor is narrowly
defeated by the Republican challenger. After this happens, but before
he is sworn in, I get my Publics Works supervisor to draft a bill
calling for bike lanes on every street in the county, including
Interstate highways and rural roads, and to have them all installed
within a year.

Obviously this can't possibly happen, but I've left a nice "time bomb"
for my evil Republican successor. He takes office, tears up my bill,
and suggests installing bike lanes on the 25% of the roads that will
actually be used by cyclists, and that gives the city five years to
construct the bike lanes.

Two things will happen here, based on political leanings.

1) Republican and non-political cyclists will thank the new mayor for
finally making progress in this area.
2) Political hacks from the Democrats will try to claim that building
all those bike lanes in five years is somehow much worse than the past
mayor doing absolutely nothing.

>>> They're almost alone in bucking Kyoto. The administration's conservative
>>> dogma is hampering any real long-term solutions.

>>
>> I disagree. The administration is hampering an expensive, ineffective
>> "solution". I couldn't agree more.

>
>Why is it that the only other major holdout on Kyoto (Australia) has the
>highest per capita CO2 emissions. Isn't it obvious that the US and
>Australian positions are self-serving? It seems to be obvious to the
>rest of the world.


Of COURSE they're self-serving (we pay them to be that way). The
issue isn't whether it's the right thing to do or not - it's whether
signing up for Kyoto would be creating a significant hardship on the
citizens of those countries without providing any measurable benefit.

>>> Since
>>> this is a global problem, the other applicable scenario is the "tragedy
>>> of the commons" -- that's where we're headed.

>>
>> BUT not due to CO2. That's my point.

>
>That's a distinctly minority opinion these days -- one might say a
>fringe view. Since the welfare of the world and future generations may
>be at stake, I find your cavalier attitude a bit shocking.


Oh, c'mon... don't be so dramatic. You haven't bothered to read even
the info presented by the pro-Kyoto camp. CO2 simply isn't the
problem, but that fight has superceded the actual issue to become the
"sound bite du jour".

I'll give you the same challenge as I did another poster recently:

1) How much of the total CO2 released into the air every year is
caused by man?
2) How much would a reduction of 7% of the man-caused (as opposed to
total) CO2 released into the atmosphere every year reduce the
temperature of the planet?

I would think you'd want to know these things in order to complement
your obvious interest in the issue.

>In any case, as so many have pointed out, conservation would itself lead
>to reduction in all pollutants, while reducing foreign dependence -- a
>win-win in my book, perhaps just a simple win in yours. The 1990 -7%
>could be easily reached just through conservation -- an idea I think
>would appeal to a conservative.


Again, I'm NOT "pro-pollution" - I'm for finding solutions that
actually work, rather than just tossing many billions of dollars into
a hysteria-fueled political bonfire. Let's put the money where it
actually does some good - I hope you'd agree that's the prudent
approach.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Hickey wrote:

>>
>>>> There is general consensus among scientists that there has been a
>>>> (short) warming trend... but fewer believe it's primarily caused by
>>>> us, and fewer still think that CO2 is the culprit. Yet that's where
>>>> all the attention of the layman has been focused, and that's where
>>>> some want to spend all the money.
>>> I doubt that you can back up this claim with credible sources.

>>
>> http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

>
>As he said, you can't back up your claim with credible sources.


Then refute the claims in that link. Should be easy, right?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 

Similar threads