Is it possible to live in America without a car?



In rec.bicycles.misc Jack May <[email protected]> wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> William Asher wrote:

>
>> And we should be riding bikes and burning the calories which is also
>> good for your health and aesthetics, right?

>
> Riding bike increases the food consumption. Food requires about ten
> calories of oil energy for each calorie that is consumed. The body at
> 98.6 degrees is not thermodynamically efficient.


True to a point, however most people in the US are already eating *more*
calories than they need. Unless they're cycling a lot, most people
won't increase their food intake. They'll simply not gain weight, or
perhaps be able to put on some of their old smaller clothes.

Of course, if you really want to use that example you have to realize
that people are dragging around two tons of steel with them in order to
use that oil. In addition, you have to account for the much higher air
drag a car experiences going at 55+ mph. Overall you have to do 25+
times as much work to use the car to travel. Even at 10 to 1, the
bicycle can come out as a smarter energy investment.

The US is the fattest nation in the world. I hardly think we need to
worry about people eating more. They'll do that with or without a
bicycle.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
"From empirical experience, your Exchange admin needs to put down the crack
pipe and open a window to disperse the fumes." -- Joe Thompson, ASR
 
di wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > That sounds like the Religious Right that elected Bush...
> >

>
> Once again, it wasn't the Right that elected Bush, it was really the
> Democratic Party who elected him by running two of the biggest idiot losers
> in the history of politics against him.


That's true. But that's always the case, except for Gore, who may have
made the difference. Well, maybe not.
 
Jack May wrote:
> So where is the great advantage to the bike? How are you going to get
> people to ride these fuel guzzler bikes when they don't meet the
> requirements of the potential users.


Bikes are needed because THEY DON'T POLLUTE and because THEY MAKE YOU
BURN THE CALORIES, which is why gyms got stationary bikes.

>
> As always, you have mindless clichés, little knowledge, and no where near a
> workable solution. You contribute nothing to a possible solution. Just
> another ignorant loser without a clue of how the world works or even whata
> solution would looks like.


So tell me, WHAT THE SOLUTION LOOKS LIKE?
 
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Jack May wrote:
> So where is the great advantage to the bike? How are you going to get
> people to ride these fuel guzzler bikes when they don't meet the
> requirements of the potential users.


Bikes are needed because THEY DON'T POLLUTE and because THEY MAKE YOU
BURN THE CALORIES, which is why gyms got stationary bikes.



I go to a gym that has stationary SUV's, you can sit in them and run the
engines all day if you want.
 
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:34:06 -0700, "Baxter"

<[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:00:16 -0700, "Baxter"

> ><[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >That's where you rightards go wrong. There's no reason that complying

> >with
> >> >Kyoto would require "economic hardship on the US".
> >>
> >> Of course it would.
> >>
> >> How do you think we could get these coal-fired electric plants to stop

> >emitting
> >> CO2? Why, shut 'em down, of course. But that would interrupt

industry,
> >so
> >> they would likely be turned off at times other than during the

workweek.
> >IOW,
> >> I'd probably be sitting here in the dark right now, 'cuz the power

would
> >be
> >> off, maybe for the weekend.

> >
> >Why shut them down? Improve their efficiency by 10%. Reduces CO2

emissions
> >AND reduces fuel costs.

>
> With money as tight as it is, I'd be real surprised if there was an

opportunity
> to improve efficiency by 10%. IOW, with fuel prices as they are, I'm

pretty
> sure that there's no damn way to improve efficiency by 10%, or they'd have

done
> it for economic reasons by now.


Industries like this are notoriously hidebound and set in their ways,
unwilling to try anything new. American Industry doesn't look beyond the
next Quarterly Report.

It's time for you defeatists to get out of the way of the people who *can*
do.
 
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I meant de-ice the windows so you could see to drive. Electric seat and
> steering wheel warmers would make it redundant to heat the whole car.


Actually they're looking a coatings that automatically defog/defrost the
windows - with little or no electrical power.
 
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 13:24:04 -0700, "Baxter" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>-
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:34:06 -0700, "Baxter"

><[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:00:16 -0700, "Baxter"
>> ><[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >That's where you rightards go wrong. There's no reason that complying
>> >with
>> >> >Kyoto would require "economic hardship on the US".
>> >>
>> >> Of course it would.
>> >>
>> >> How do you think we could get these coal-fired electric plants to stop
>> >emitting
>> >> CO2? Why, shut 'em down, of course. But that would interrupt

>industry,
>> >so
>> >> they would likely be turned off at times other than during the

>workweek.
>> >IOW,
>> >> I'd probably be sitting here in the dark right now, 'cuz the power

>would
>> >be
>> >> off, maybe for the weekend.
>> >
>> >Why shut them down? Improve their efficiency by 10%. Reduces CO2

>emissions
>> >AND reduces fuel costs.

>>
>> With money as tight as it is, I'd be real surprised if there was an

>opportunity
>> to improve efficiency by 10%. IOW, with fuel prices as they are, I'm

>pretty
>> sure that there's no damn way to improve efficiency by 10%, or they'd have

>done
>> it for economic reasons by now.

>
>Industries like this are notoriously hidebound and set in their ways,
>unwilling to try anything new. American Industry doesn't look beyond the
>next Quarterly Report.
>
>It's time for you defeatists to get out of the way of the people who *can*
>do.


I'm not stopping 'em from increasing efficiency any time they want.

I'd really, really, like to stop 'em signing some crazy law or treaty that
destroys the livability of the USA, constraining energy so much that we can't
afford to do anything but go to work in the day (if we can indeed afford to do
that) and then becoming prisoners in our houses at night, not permitted to buy
the gas we can afford or being forced to drive tiny little rollerskate cars
that crumple around you like tinfoil whenever you hit anything larger than a
matchbook cover in the road.

Lots of the other countries are not meeting Kyoto, and know they won't in the
future, and are fine with it. We'd destroy the damn economy to satisfy the
treaty, because we live up to our treaties... or try to.

As for waste heat in electrical generating plants, Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_plant#Stack_gas_path_and_cleanup

says:

"As the combustion flue gas exits the boiler it is routed through a rotating
flat basket of metal mesh which picks up heat and returns it to incoming fresh
air as the basket rotates"

and:

"The gas travelling up the smoke stack may by this time only have a temperature
of about 120 °F (50 °C)."

Don't think you're going to get much better than that.

Dave Head

>
 
di wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> Jack May wrote:
> > So where is the great advantage to the bike? How are you going to get
> > people to ride these fuel guzzler bikes when they don't meet the
> > requirements of the potential users.

>
> Bikes are needed because THEY DON'T POLLUTE and because THEY MAKE YOU
> BURN THE CALORIES, which is why gyms got stationary bikes.
>
>
>
> I go to a gym that has stationary SUV's, you can sit in them and run the
> engines all day if you want.


Who's that for, oil junkies?

They should be put in a closed garage and let it run overnight. No,
they don't pollute. ;)
 
Baxter wrote:
> > it for economic reasons by now.

>
> Industries like this are notoriously hidebound and set in their ways,
> unwilling to try anything new. American Industry doesn't look beyond the
> next Quarterly Report.
>
> It's time for you defeatists to get out of the way of the people who *can*
> do.


Big Oil is too stupid to evolve. And that's a fatal mistake when things
change...

"It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most
intelligent, but the one most responsive to change." -Charles Darwin

The one and only...
http://www.rit.edu/~slrbbu/suv.gif
 
"Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote
>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:34:06 -0700, "Baxter" wrote:


>> >Why shut them down? Improve their efficiency by 10%. Reduces CO2

>emissions
>> >AND reduces fuel costs.

>>
>> With money as tight as it is, I'd be real surprised if there was an

>opportunity
>> to improve efficiency by 10%. IOW, with fuel prices as they are, I'm

>pretty
>> sure that there's no damn way to improve efficiency by 10%, or they'd have

>done
>> it for economic reasons by now.

>
>Industries like this are notoriously hidebound and set in their ways,
>unwilling to try anything new. American Industry doesn't look beyond the
>next Quarterly Report.
>
>It's time for you defeatists to get out of the way of the people who *can*
>do.


LOL. Just wave a magic wand and ******, the thermodynamics of a
multi-billion dollar industry goes up by a very significant 10%,
right? You honestly think that if this "evil industry" had a way to
reduce its energy costs by 10% WHILE reducing emissions that they
would NOT do it???

I'm trying to imagine how hard it would be to believe that.

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

>Mark Hickey wrote:


>> 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,

>
>There's plenty of real opposition to the administration's environmental
>policies, and there has been for 6 years now. It's not a matter of a
>Clinton-era "time bomb".


Here's the thing... Clinton did NOTHING to improve air quality, and
yet you never heard a peep from the media about any angst over his
environmental policies. Bush actually implements the most
comprehensive measures for clean air in decades, and he's considered a
huge problem. I guess I don't have what it takes to understand
politics (I keep getting mired in facts).

>> 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.

>
>Well, we disagree. I think the real issue *is* to do the right thing.


Which would not be to throw money down the toilet chasing the CO2
problem.

>> CO2 simply isn't the
>> problem, but that fight has superceded the actual issue to become the
>> "sound bite du jour".

>
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Objectives>
>
>"According to a press release from the United Nations Environment Programme:
>
> "The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement under which industrialized
>countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by
>5.2% compared to the year 1990 (but note that, compared to the emissions
>levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this target
>represents a 29% cut). The goal is to lower overall emissions of six
>greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur
>hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs - calculated as an average over the
>five-year period of 2008-12. National targets range from 8% reductions
>for the European Union and some others to 7% for the US, 6% for Japan,
>0% for Russia, and permitted increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for
>Iceland."


Goals which almost all the signees are entirely ignoring, BTW.

>> 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.

>
>The questions you pose aren't really the essence of the debate. The real
>questions are:
>
>1) How much of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to man-made CO2
>emissions?
>
>2) How fast is the planet warming?
>
>3) How much of the warming is from increased CO2 levels?
>
>The consensus of the scientific community seems to be:
>
>1) virtually 100%
>
>2) pretty fast, and getting faster
>
>3) virtually 100%


Nonsense. There is not now, nor has there ever been a significant
correlation between CO2 levels and the planet's temperature. In fact,
the planet was cooling rapidly during the real increase in CO2 levels
from the 40's through the 70's. There IS a huge correlation between
solar activity and the planet's temperature, and if you think there's
100% consensus that CO2 is the source of the problem, you're deluding
yourself (and haven't been reading the links I posted).

>A reduction of consumption would achieve a reduction of emissions. Left
>alone, the free market won't reduce consumption.


I agree this is true, and think the only solution is more expensive
oil - but I don't think that's a solution to global warming as much as
it is to a stable political atmosphere (talk about pollution!). ;-)

>Conservation alone would achieve Kyoto goals and reduce dependency on
>unstable global markets. We've tripled our dependency on imported oil
>since the crisis of the 70's and because of that are in an unacceptably
>vulnerable situation.


I couldn't agree more.

>We've had over 30 years to prepare for the
>inevitable and haven't done squat. Cutting our per capita energy use to
>industrialized European levels will cost "many billions", but it will
>save many billions, too.


I'm not sure how to go about reducing our energy usage that much
though. $3 gas will help, but we live in big houses many miles from
our work, and don't have the mass transit infrastructure (I'm a big MT
fan). It's a tough and painful transition from one to the other.

>Conservatives like to argue that Iraq isn't an oil war (despite the fact
>that nobody really believes that -- here or there). Even if it wasn't,
>it should be. We're (the industrial West and emerging East) teetering on
>a knife's edge. There's chaos, hostility, corruption and instability
>across OPEC and any serious hiccup will throw the economics of the world
>into disarray. We've painted ourselves into a corner where we have to
>fight for control of those resources -- despite the crippling costs.
>This was not an inevitable situation.


Iraq WAS an oil war, starting with the invasion of Kuwait. And yes,
it wouldn't be so globally important if it wasn't for the potential of
the disruption to the world's oil supply that you mention above. But
that's a far cry from the "invasion to steal the Iraqi's oil" that it
was painted to be originally.

>The Kyoto Protocol (and the world opinion it represents) is just another
>clue that we have to change our ways. Those changes will make a stronger
>and richer America, not a poorer and weaker one.


And here I simply have to disagree - Kyoto itself isn't the answer,
since it adresses an issue that's not really the problem. I have no
problem with conservation for conservation's sake - but to wrap it all
around CO2 reduction is letting the tail wag the dog, IMHO.

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

> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > I meant de-ice the windows so you could see to drive. Electric seat and
> > steering wheel warmers would make it redundant to heat the whole car.

>
> Actually they're looking a coatings that automatically defog/defrost the
> windows - with little or no electrical power.


It'll be interesting to see how defrosting is achieved with no power input !

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

>
> >> 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,

> >
> >There's plenty of real opposition to the administration's environmental
> >policies, and there has been for 6 years now. It's not a matter of a
> >Clinton-era "time bomb".

>
> Here's the thing... Clinton did NOTHING to improve air quality, and
> yet you never heard a peep from the media about any angst over his
> environmental policies. Bush actually implements the most
> comprehensive measures for clean air in decades, and he's considered a
> huge problem. I guess I don't have what it takes to understand
> politics (I keep getting mired in facts).


OK, we shall see...

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=169613
 
Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> Baxter wrote:
>
>
>>"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>I meant de-ice the windows so you could see to drive. Electric seat and
>>>steering wheel warmers would make it redundant to heat the whole car.

>>
>>Actually they're looking a coatings that automatically defog/defrost the
>>windows - with little or no electrical power.

>
>
> It'll be interesting to see how defrosting is achieved with no power input !
>
> Graham
>


It won't, but there are coatings that are fairly useful for keeping
windows from getting foggy. The trick is finding ones that either are
permanent, or can be applied periodically by a typical user without
causing streaking, etc.

nate


--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
 
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 13:24:04 -0700, "Baxter"

<[email protected]>
> >
> >It's time for you defeatists to get out of the way of the people who

*can*
> >do.

>
> I'm not stopping 'em from increasing efficiency any time they want.
>


Yes you are - by refusing to support Kyoto.

Kind of like the Minimum Wage - if you vote against it, you can't say you're
for wages going up.
 
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Here's the thing... Clinton did NOTHING to improve air quality,


Actually he did - or tried to. Bush put holds on every Clinton
environmental program.


>and
> yet you never heard a peep from the media about any angst over his
> environmental policies. Bush actually implements the most
> comprehensive measures for clean air in decades,


You'd make Orwell proud.
 
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 20:45:23 -0700, "Baxter" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>-
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 13:24:04 -0700, "Baxter"

><[email protected]>
>> >
>> >It's time for you defeatists to get out of the way of the people who

>*can*
>> >do.

>>
>> I'm not stopping 'em from increasing efficiency any time they want.
>>

>
>Yes you are - by refusing to support Kyoto.


Refusing to support an anti-American scheme that would wreck our economy in no
way keeps the owners of power plants from making them more efficient. The
laws of physics keep them from making them more efficient, since they're got
exhaust temperatures in the vicinity of 120 degrees even now. You can't drag
much more energy out of your fire if you've got your exhaust down to that temp.

>Kind of like the Minimum Wage - if you vote against it, you can't say you're
>for wages going up.


How'd the minimum wage get into this (which I support, BTW...)

Dave Head
 
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:12:04 -0500, "di" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>Jack May wrote:
>> So where is the great advantage to the bike? How are you going to get
>> people to ride these fuel guzzler bikes when they don't meet the
>> requirements of the potential users.

>
>Bikes are needed because THEY DON'T POLLUTE and because THEY MAKE YOU
>BURN THE CALORIES, which is why gyms got stationary bikes.
>
>
>
>I go to a gym that has stationary SUV's, you can sit in them and run the
>engines all day if you want.
>


Very funny. Bike to a gym so that you can sit in an SUV.
 
Dave Head wrote:
> >Yes you are - by refusing to support Kyoto.

>
> Refusing to support an anti-American scheme that would wreck our economy in no
> way keeps the owners of power plants from making them more efficient. The
> laws of physics keep them from making them more efficient, since they're got
> exhaust temperatures in the vicinity of 120 degrees even now. You can't drag
> much more energy out of your fire if you've got your exhaust down to that temp.


If America worries about China getting a preferential treatment through
the Kyoto Protocol, nobody is giving China more preferential treatment
than America herself through her globalization scheme.

And that really wrecks America's economy.
 
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 20:45:23 -0700, "Baxter"

<[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 13:24:04 -0700, "Baxter"

> ><[email protected]>
> >> >
> >> >It's time for you defeatists to get out of the way of the people who

> >*can*
> >> >do.
> >>
> >> I'm not stopping 'em from increasing efficiency any time they want.
> >>

> >
> >Yes you are - by refusing to support Kyoto.

>
> Refusing to support an anti-American scheme that would wreck our economy

in no

********. It's not "anti-American", it's pro-human.

> way keeps the owners of power plants from making them more efficient.

The
> laws of physics keep them from making them more efficient,


Baloney.
 

Similar threads