Is it possible to live in America without a car?



On 19 Jun 2006 08:40:50 -0700, "donquijote1954" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>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.


Sure doesn't help the balance of trade, does it?

The thing I find unacceptable about the Kyoto treaty, with respect to
international considerations, is the idea we have to send money to some foreign
country for basically nothing, in the form of the "CO2 trading" scheme. That
just isn't ever going to fly in my book. We'll use our money to overcome the
problem scientifically, rathet than just giving it away.

Dave Head
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Tar sands are used for OIL extraction. Controlled Fusion I think is
>still a long way off, due to the heavy duty physics involved and the
>nature of a Fusion reaction. Fusion is roughly 1,000 times more powerful
>than Fission and a screwup with it would make Chernobyl look like a
>small firecracker that just fizzled.


Chernobyl was less than a fizzle. There was no nuclear explosion at
all, merely a physical explosion distributing nuclear waste. A
similar screwup with fusion would do less, as there's less really
nasty waste involved. But commercially-feasible fusion is a pipe
dream; there's no prospect of it in the near future.

>> The venture capitalist are high on genetically modifying organisms to
>> naturally produce alcohol or hydrogen as part of their excretion with sun as
>> the power source.

>
>Alcohol burns cleaner than gasoline, no denial there, but still makes CO2.


No _net_ CO2 in that case. Though I think it's as much a pipe dream as fusion.

>> Solar power can't be used for transportation directly because you can't get
>> enough energy out of the sun in the surface area of a car.
>>
>>

>Yes it can if you let the car sit in the sun all day while you are in
>the building working. You could get 20 miles each way on a sunny day.


****, it rained, I'm stuck at work. Damn, it's winter, not enough
sun. Oops, I need to travel _30_ miles.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Baxter <[email protected]> wrote:
>Baloney!
>
>First off, junkscience.com is a propaganda site supported by Big Oil.
>(http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html)


Right, and "Mother Jones" isn't propaganda?

>Second, humans are dumping .millions.of.tons. of CO into the atmosphere
>every day - you cannot dump that much of something into the atmosphere
>without making an impact.


How many tons in the atmosphere, total?

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>>

>
>> There was a link to another model posted today (USAF?), and it
>> supports the same relative effect (as do many other articles I've read
>> on the subject).

>
>Cite?
>
>
>
>> <big snip>
>>
>>>> So if we were to cut our CO2 production as a species by 50% (something
>>>> that's WELL beyond the wildest dreams of the Kyoto crowd),
>>> Perhaps (and perhaps it's good that Kyoto goals were a modest start)
>>>
>>>> we'd reduce
>>>> the TOTAL CO2 production by only 1.7%.
>>> But that might have a significant effect on global warming. It's not
>>> unreasonable to consider the possible range of costs, both human and
>>> economic, and balance those against the costs of CO2 reduction (human
>>> and economic), that's a rational approach.

>>
>> But I'm doing exactly what you suggest. The Kyoto protocol calls for
>> only a few percent rollback in CO2 production, but will cost many,
>> many billions of dollars.

>
>Possibly, but what's the cost of doing nothing?


Unknown. And I mean completely unknown.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 
"Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"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.


Read the actual history. The only thing Clinton did was wait until
AFTER Gore lost the election, then had his EPA chief push through an
entirely unrealistic bill that couldn't have been implemented. Bush
started over and created a workable approach that removes 70% of the
mercury from the air (for starters), the most ambitious air quality
improvement in decades.

Yet the bloggers and press can convince you that Clinton was the good
guy (though he actually did NOTHING) and Bush is the bad guy (though
he actually is making something happen).

>>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.


Why, did he live near a coal-fired power plant?

Or perhaps you'd like to disprove what I claim (or would you rather
just make more vague references to authors?).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
[email protected] (Matthew Russotto) writes:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Baxter <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Baloney!
> >
> >First off, junkscience.com is a propaganda site supported by Big Oil.
> >(http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html)

>
> Right, and "Mother Jones" isn't propaganda?


Yep, it isn't propaganda - its writers genuinely believe what they
say and are expressing their points of view, uninformed as you may
think it is. Propaganda, by contrast, is put out merely to control
public opinion and functions as a form of advertising.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

> Yet the bloggers and press can convince you that Clinton was the good
> guy (though he actually did NOTHING) and Bush is the bad guy (though
> he actually is making something happen).


Actually, both suck. The two party system is killing us all.

--
*Help Animals, the Earth and Your Health! *
*Find out how:* www.VeganStarterPack.com <http://www.veganstarterpack.com/>
 
Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Tar sands are used for OIL extraction. Controlled Fusion I think is
>> still a long way off, due to the heavy duty physics involved and the
>> nature of a Fusion reaction. Fusion is roughly 1,000 times more powerful
>> than Fission and a screwup with it would make Chernobyl look like a
>> small firecracker that just fizzled.

>
> Chernobyl was less than a fizzle. There was no nuclear explosion at
> all, merely a physical explosion distributing nuclear waste. A
> similar screwup with fusion would do less, as there's less really
> nasty waste involved. But commercially-feasible fusion is a pipe
> dream; there's no prospect of it in the near future.


No,
Fusion is entirely done at temperatures like in the core of the sun and
is not something you can just do with a few grams of radioactive dust.
>
>>> The venture capitalist are high on genetically modifying organisms to
>>> naturally produce alcohol or hydrogen as part of their excretion with sun as
>>> the power source.

>> Alcohol burns cleaner than gasoline, no denial there, but still makes CO2.

>
> No _net_ CO2 in that case. Though I think it's as much a pipe dream as fusion.


Well Corn alcohol takes in CO2 as it grows and gives it back when it is
burned. I think all alcohols and most petroleum fuels are basically
carbohydrates with the most basic being C6H12O6, which if burned just
release the water (6 x H2O) and burns the carbon.
>
>>> Solar power can't be used for transportation directly because you can't get
>>> enough energy out of the sun in the surface area of a car.
>>>
>>>

>> Yes it can if you let the car sit in the sun all day while you are in
>> the building working. You could get 20 miles each way on a sunny day.

>
> ****, it rained, I'm stuck at work. Damn, it's winter, not enough
> sun. Oops, I need to travel _30_ miles.


Nothing is ever going to be perfect.
Bill Baka
 
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
>
>


Try that in Minnesota when there has been 3 feet of snow overnight and
you make the mistake of leaving your car outside after a shopping trip.
It happened to me so it can happen to anyone.
I scraped ICE for about 30 minutes with the engine running in -15F and
even then it was barely getting the worst off of the windshield to free
the wipers. The rear windows were hopeless until I got driving and got
the whole car up to about 65 inside.
Bill Baka
 
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
> >Baloney!
> >
> >First off, junkscience.com is a propaganda site supported by Big Oil.
> >(http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html)

>
> Right, and "Mother Jones" isn't propaganda?


junkscience.com is still a propaganda shill - and a dishonest one at that.

>
> >Second, humans are dumping .millions.of.tons. of CO into the atmosphere
> >every day - you cannot dump that much of something into the atmosphere
> >without making an impact.

>
> How many tons in the atmosphere, total?


It doesn't matter once you pass the limit - which we have.
 
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"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.

>
> Read the actual history. The only thing Clinton did was wait until
> AFTER Gore lost the election, then had his EPA chief push through an
> entirely unrealistic bill that couldn't have been implemented. Bush
> started over and created a workable approach that removes 70% of the
> mercury from the air (for starters), the most ambitious air quality
> improvement in decades.
>


That's plain ********. Bush has been reducing EPA protections as fast and
as much as possible.

And, no, Clinton's initiatives wer not unrealistic - they came after eight
years of study.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Poor, misinformed, can't spell, dude. Anything that puts out excess CO2
>>> is by definition polluting, as are 6 billion people.

>>
>> CO2 is no more pollution than O2 is.
>>
>>> The pollution you refer to is CO and NO, which have been
>>> reduced. However a 90% reduction matters little when there are 300%
>>> (or more) drivers stuck in ever more traffic jams.

>>
>> Hmm. X * (1-0.9) * 3 = 0.3X Looks like that 90% reduction DOES matter.

>
>I hate arguing with unarmed people. Watch the Apollo movie with Tom
>Hanks. The biggest danger they faced was CO2 from the scrubbers failing.
>The human animal is very sensitive to an overload of CO2, not much math
>involved, so maybe you can handle it. Plants would love 3% CO2, but
>humans would be extinct.


Non sequitur. Where'd that 3% number come from?

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 
Kevan Smith wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Yet the bloggers and press can convince you that Clinton was the good
> > guy (though he actually did NOTHING) and Bush is the bad guy (though
> > he actually is making something happen).

>
> Actually, both suck. The two party system is killing us all.


Better than the one party system they had in Mexico, for what, 70
years. ;)

But now they are catching up with us, and we see nothing happening
either.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Meanwhile, the numbers show that there is effectively no change over
>the last five years so, the argument doesn't hold up. A 1% increase
>over that period is not significant but still surprising. This may be
>a result of new financing schemes, such as reverse mortgages and
>no-principal loans, both of which will come back to reduce ownership
>in the long term.


The big reason for high home ownership is the obvious one -- low
interest rates. Of course, the Fed is working on screwing that up...

>I can't imagine what the no-principal home buyers are planning but it
>is not ownership. That's seems to me to be the same as renting except
>that there may be a tax break for payment that is better than renting.


The principal difference (aside from taxes) is that any increase in
value of the property is to the benefit of the owner, whereas a renter
does not see any such benefit.

Anyway, balloon mortgages have been around for a long time; they've
just become a lot more popular lately because of low interest rates.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 
donquijote1954 wrote:
> Gore was saying last night on PBS' Charlie Rose that we got 10 years
> before reaching the point of no return.


Oh, NOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooo..................

:-D
 
Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Baxter <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Baloney!
> >
> >First off, junkscience.com is a propaganda site supported by Big Oil.
> >(http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html)

>
> Right, and "Mother Jones" isn't propaganda?
>
> >Second, humans are dumping .millions.of.tons. of CO into the atmosphere
> >every day - you cannot dump that much of something into the atmosphere
> >without making an impact.

>
> How many tons in the atmosphere, total?



Let's see.. 14.7 psi mumbled into Kg/m^2 -> 10,350
Earth is 6,4000,000 m in radius, so 4*pi*r^2 = 514457600000000 m^2.
Multiplying gives 5.32x10^18 Kg.

Googling gives 5.15x10^18 Kg.
 
Sorni wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > Gore was saying last night on PBS' Charlie Rose that we got 10 years
> > before reaching the point of no return.

>
> Oh, NOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooo..................


I think Bush is a sort of prophet of Armageddon...

http://www.internetweekly.org/2004/09/cartoon_bush_armageddon.html

And then if you follow him, you'll go to Heaven too, where all the
other Repuclicans go. Sorry, no drinking, f***ing around, or thinking.
Just follow the leader.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
george conklin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Once the U.S. gets over their irrational fear of nuclear energy, and joins
>> the rest of the industrialized world, it'll make plug-in hybrids the best
>> option.
>>
>>
>>

>
> A few years back environmentalists were against nuclear power. Times do
>change. Of course, in 50,000 years we will still be living with the
>radioactive waste.


Environmentalists only pretend to be for nuclear power when there's no
prospect of any being built. As soon as that changes, they'll be
against it. Environmentalists are against power generation full stop.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> george conklin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> Once the U.S. gets over their irrational fear of nuclear energy, and

joins
> >> the rest of the industrialized world, it'll make plug-in hybrids the

best
> >> option.
> >>
> >>
> >>

> >
> > A few years back environmentalists were against nuclear power. Times

do
> >change. Of course, in 50,000 years we will still be living with the
> >radioactive waste.

>
> Environmentalists only pretend to be for nuclear power when there's no
> prospect of any being built. As soon as that changes, they'll be
> against it. Environmentalists are against power generation full stop.


Or maybe it's an entirely different group of "environmentalists"?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Tar sands are used for OIL extraction. Controlled Fusion I think is
>>> still a long way off, due to the heavy duty physics involved and the
>>> nature of a Fusion reaction. Fusion is roughly 1,000 times more powerful
>>> than Fission and a screwup with it would make Chernobyl look like a
>>> small firecracker that just fizzled.

>>
>> Chernobyl was less than a fizzle. There was no nuclear explosion at
>> all, merely a physical explosion distributing nuclear waste. A
>> similar screwup with fusion would do less, as there's less really
>> nasty waste involved. But commercially-feasible fusion is a pipe
>> dream; there's no prospect of it in the near future.

>
>No,
>Fusion is entirely done at temperatures like in the core of the sun and
>is not something you can just do with a few grams of radioactive dust.


Another non sequitur

>>>> Solar power can't be used for transportation directly because you can't get
>>>> enough energy out of the sun in the surface area of a car.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yes it can if you let the car sit in the sun all day while you are in
>>> the building working. You could get 20 miles each way on a sunny day.

>>
>> ****, it rained, I'm stuck at work. Damn, it's winter, not enough
>> sun. Oops, I need to travel _30_ miles.

>
>Nothing is ever going to be perfect.


To call that imperfect is the understatement of the century.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 

Similar threads