Keep Biking - We Need To

[oilfreeandhappy]

This site and others show 114,000 BTUs per gallon of gasoline (unleaded
regular):
http://www.nafa.org/Content/Navigat...els/Energy_Equivalents/Energy_Equivalents.htm

Also, light rail doesn't pollute in the city, so it doesn't contribute
as much to local smog. The electricity could be generated by wind,
geothermal, hydroelectric, or coal. If coal, pollution controls are
all at the single point of source.

Last, a lot more effort has gone into making cars more efficient than
has gone into making light rail and trains more efficient, which means
there is a lot of room for improvements. Electrical generation
improvements, including more efficient transformers, transmission
lines, capacitor installations, cogeneration, and distribution voltage
upgrades will continue to improve electrical efficiencies. Here's a
link that describes a lot of the improvements in electricity
generation, and points out that there's a lot of room for improvement:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/vrrpt/chapter2.html

 

[Dave Larrington]

In article <[email protected]>, Wayne Pein
([email protected]) wrote:
> Chalo wrote:
>
> > oilfreeandhappy wrote:
> >
> >>I agree. Some hard data should be forthcoming to back that statement.
> >>However, I have read that airlines do use more fuel than if all the
> >>occupants drove cars. This was stated in a Worldwatch Institute
> >>article.
> >
> >
> > Well, yeah. The Space Shuttle proabably uses more fuel per
> > passenger-mile than a car, too. But we're talking about trains and
> > buses here. I'd be very, very surprised if Wayne isn't either making
> > stuff up or repeating some outright lie put forth by the very active
> > and well-financed anti-transit lobby.
> >
> > Chalo Colina
> >
>
> Now is that nice, accusing me of making things up?
>
> http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/favorites/fcvt_fotw221.shtml
> shows the energy intensity of rail. Bus transit is similar.
>
> If there are 125,000 BTUs in a gallon of gas, a car that gets 25 mpg
> with just the drvier in it gets 5000 BTU per passenger mile, right
> within the range of public transit.
>
> The energy savings of most public transit is a popular myth.

May we draw Sir's attention to this:

<URL:http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/
2003/html/table_04_15.html>

?

It doesn't require many passengers before the per-capita fuel
consumption of a bus is less than that of the single-occupancy SUV in an
urban environment with which the US is littered. Approximately two, I'd
reckon.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
There's a village in Texas that's missing its idiot.

 

[Wayne Pein]

oilfreeandhappy wrote:
> This site and others show 114,000 BTUs per gallon of gasoline (unleaded
> regular):
> http://www.nafa.org/Content/Navigat...els/Energy_Equivalents/Energy_Equivalents.htm
>

I've seen 125 and 124 thousand BTUs for a gallon. So there is a variability.


> Also, light rail doesn't pollute in the city, so it doesn't contribute
> as much to local smog. The electricity could be generated by wind,
> geothermal, hydroelectric, or coal. If coal, pollution controls are
> all at the single point of source.

If light rail were so wonderful, it would be widely used. But it is not.

>
> Last, a lot more effort has gone into making cars more efficient than
> has gone into making light rail and trains more efficient, which means
> there is a lot of room for improvements. Electrical generation
> improvements, including more efficient transformers, transmission
> lines, capacitor installations, cogeneration, and distribution voltage
> upgrades will continue to improve electrical efficiencies. Here's a
> link that describes a lot of the improvements in electricity
> generation, and points out that there's a lot of room for improvement:
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/vrrpt/chapter2.html
>

Perhaps you can then ride a wonderful electric bike!

Wayne

 

[Wayne Pein]

Dave Larrington wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Wayne Pein
> ([email protected]) wrote:
>
>>Chalo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>oilfreeandhappy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I agree. Some hard data should be forthcoming to back that statement.
>>>>However, I have read that airlines do use more fuel than if all the
>>>>occupants drove cars. This was stated in a Worldwatch Institute
>>>>article.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, yeah. The Space Shuttle proabably uses more fuel per
>>>passenger-mile than a car, too. But we're talking about trains and
>>>buses here. I'd be very, very surprised if Wayne isn't either making
>>>stuff up or repeating some outright lie put forth by the very active
>>>and well-financed anti-transit lobby.
>>>
>>>Chalo Colina
>>>
>>
>>Now is that nice, accusing me of making things up?
>>
>>http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/favorites/fcvt_fotw221.shtml
>>shows the energy intensity of rail. Bus transit is similar.
>>
>>If there are 125,000 BTUs in a gallon of gas, a car that gets 25 mpg
>>with just the drvier in it gets 5000 BTU per passenger mile, right
>>within the range of public transit.
>>
>>The energy savings of most public transit is a popular myth.
>
>
> May we draw Sir's attention to this:
>
> <URL:http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/
> 2003/html/table_04_15.html>
>
> ?
>
> It doesn't require many passengers before the per-capita fuel
> consumption of a bus is less than that of the single-occupancy SUV in an
> urban environment with which the US is littered. Approximately two, I'd
> reckon.
>

More like 5. But that 5 is for every meter that the bus operates. It is
not as easy as one would think. Also, what makes you think the bus would
replace trips by single occupant SUV drivers? I thought single occupant
SUV drivers did so because they could afford to, and liked what they
were doing?

Wayne
Urban Busses are Sinkholes of Bicycling and Walking Trips, Turning
Healthy Non-Polluters Into Chauffered Motorists.

 

[Rico X. Partay]

Johnny Sunset wrote:
> Drew Eckhardt wrote:
>> In article
>> <[email protected]>,
>> Johnny Sunset <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> In the US, many people can not afford to live closer to
>>> their jobs, due to housing prices.
>> In the US, many people CHOOSE not to live closer to
>> their jobs because that means accepting less home than
>> they like. I choose a town home within city limits over
>> a house, yard, and commute by car for the same money
>> elsewhere.

> There are millions of people working service sector
> retail jobs in suburban areas that can not afford even a
> single bedroom apartment near their place of work.


Not to mention all the people who share a household with
another working person who works in a different place. The
choice of a location that's reasonable for both may require
one or both to commute.

 

[Chalo]

Wayne Pein wrote:
>
> http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/favorites/fcvt_fotw221.shtml
> shows the energy intensity of rail. Bus transit is similar.
>
> If there are 125,000 BTUs in a gallon of gas, a car that gets 25 mpg
> with just the drvier in it gets 5000 BTU per passenger mile, right
> within the range of public transit.

Cars that yield an actual 25mpg or better in city driving are not
average. It looks like proportionally there are at least as many light
rail systems beat that consume 2500 BTU/pass. mi. or less as there are
cars that beat 5000 BTU/pass. mi by your reckoning.

> The energy savings of most public transit is a popular myth.

You still haven't shown that.

Chalo Colina

 

[Wayne Pein]

oilfreeandhappy wrote:
> Last, a lot more effort has gone into making cars more efficient than
> has gone into making light rail and trains more efficient, which means
> there is a lot of room for improvements.

The efficiency gains of cars have not been appreciably realized. Just
because high milage Honda insights exist doesn't mean many people use
them. And just because the technology exists to make public transit more
efficient doesn't mean it will be implemented anytime soon.

I know you feel good about using public transit because you think you
are saving a lot of energy. Get over it; you are not. It's probable you
are using more energy than if you drove an economy car. Ride a bike and
you are saving a lot.

Wayne
Urban Public Transit Reduces Bicycling and Walking

 

[Wayne Pein]

Chalo wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>>http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/favorites/fcvt_fotw221.shtml
>>shows the energy intensity of rail. Bus transit is similar.
>>
>>If there are 125,000 BTUs in a gallon of gas, a car that gets 25 mpg
>>with just the drvier in it gets 5000 BTU per passenger mile, right
>>within the range of public transit.
>
>
> Cars that yield an actual 25mpg or better in city driving are not
> average. It looks like proportionally there are at least as many light
> rail systems beat that consume 2500 BTU/pass. mi. or less as there are
> cars that beat 5000 BTU/pass. mi by your reckoning.
>
>
>>The energy savings of most public transit is a popular myth.
>
>
> You still haven't shown that.
>
> Chalo Colina
>

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics website shows that passenger car
and Transit Motor Bus both have an energy intensity of about 3500 BTU
per passenger mile.

The Department of Energy website shows that most light and heavy rail
systems exceed 3500 BTU per passenger mile.

A typical bicyclist is at least 2 orders of magnitude less.

Wayne

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On 17 Jan 2006 18:14:51 -0800, "Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>While it is true that real wages in the US have been falling for the
>last 3 decades (not coincidently with the rise of the political right
>and the lack of a political party representing labor), housing prices
>have been inflated by speculation and financial institutions providing
>larger mortgages than the income of the borrowers would suggest is
>prudent.

Especially lately, with interest rates at record lows. A 30 year mortgage
with a 5 or 10 year fixed interest that you can just barely cough up the
dough for now is going to be a huge problem for you 10 years on if
interest rates have risen significantly -- which is likely to stop the
value of the home from following inflation, let alone make profit. Sure,
you can count on having gotten a few promotions along the way, but if
those don't materialise you're screwed.

Jasper

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:30:44 GMT, Mike Latondresse
<mikelat@no_spam_shaw.ca> wrote:
>"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> OK, then explain Europe with its socialist policies and
>> traditionally high import taxes, but which has generally better
>> cars and better washing machines than the US has.
>>
>Better washing machines, you have to be kidding. Those little junkers
>grunt and groan and take so many loads to do a decent wash that any
>supposed "energy efficiency" is imaginary.

Then don't buy a junker, for christ's sake. A Miele will stand up in
comparison with any US-made washing machine. A Bosch or Siemens is sturdy
and functional. Most of the other brands are cheap ****, about on a par
with the US-made stuff.

And if you think a 6-kilo washing-machine takes small loads, you're going
through way too many towels.


Jasper

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Rico X. Partay" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Johnny Sunset wrote:

>> There are millions of people working service sector
>> retail jobs in suburban areas that can not afford even a
>> single bedroom apartment near their place of work.
>
> Not to mention all the people who share a household with
>another working person who works in a different place. The
>choice of a location that's reasonable for both may require
>one or both to commute.

So you are suggesting that you should only date someone at your place
of work to save gas? Hmmmmm. For some of us that would be a truly
frightening proposition!

I have to admit that I really enjoyed tandem commuting with my wife
when we worked in the same place (35 miles a day).

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

 

[Mark Hickey]

Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> wrote:

>Especially lately, with interest rates at record lows. A 30 year mortgage
>with a 5 or 10 year fixed interest that you can just barely cough up the
>dough for now is going to be a huge problem for you 10 years on if
>interest rates have risen significantly -- which is likely to stop the
>value of the home from following inflation, let alone make profit. Sure,
>you can count on having gotten a few promotions along the way, but if
>those don't materialise you're screwed.

There are SO many people who seem to think that equity is a bad thing.
Every time their house goes up $10K in value, they refinance and buy a
new toy. I guess that's OK if it's a bike... ;-) but it scares me
from a macroeconomic perspective. A sharp increase in interest rates
could trigger a lot of mortgage defaults, which wouldn't do the
economy a whole lot of good.

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

 

[Johnny Sunset]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Especially lately, with interest rates at record lows. A 30 year mortgage
> >with a 5 or 10 year fixed interest that you can just barely cough up the
> >dough for now is going to be a huge problem for you 10 years on if
> >interest rates have risen significantly -- which is likely to stop the
> >value of the home from following inflation, let alone make profit. Sure,
> >you can count on having gotten a few promotions along the way, but if
> >those don't materialise you're screwed.
>
> There are SO many people who seem to think that equity is a bad thing.
> Every time their house goes up $10K in value, they refinance and buy a
> new toy. I guess that's OK if it's a bike... ;-) but it scares me
> from a macroeconomic perspective. A sharp increase in interest rates
> could trigger a lot of mortgage defaults, which wouldn't do the
> economy a whole lot of good.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame

Interest rates in the US will go up regardless of what the Federal
Reserve does, due to the chronic deficit spending by the US government.
When the housing "bubble" bursts, not many people are going to be in
the market for new titanium alloy frame bicycles, even those that start
at $795. However, the LBS that does maintenance and repair on commuter
bicycles might do well as people look for cheap alternative
transportation.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

 

[Sorni]

Johnny Sunset wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>> Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Especially lately, with interest rates at record lows. A 30 year
>>> mortgage with a 5 or 10 year fixed interest that you can just
>>> barely cough up the dough for now is going to be a huge problem for
>>> you 10 years on if interest rates have risen significantly -- which
>>> is likely to stop the value of the home from following inflation,
>>> let alone make profit. Sure, you can count on having gotten a few
>>> promotions along the way, but if those don't materialise you're
>>> screwed.
>>
>> There are SO many people who seem to think that equity is a bad
>> thing. Every time their house goes up $10K in value, they refinance
>> and buy a new toy. I guess that's OK if it's a bike... ;-) but it
>> scares me from a macroeconomic perspective. A sharp increase in
>> interest rates could trigger a lot of mortgage defaults, which
>> wouldn't do the economy a whole lot of good.
>>
>> Mark Hickey
>> Habanero Cycles
>> http://www.habcycles.com
>> Home of the $795 ti frame
>
> Interest rates in the US will go up regardless of what the Federal
> Reserve does, due to the chronic deficit spending by the US
> government. When the housing "bubble" bursts, not many people are
> going to be in the market for new titanium alloy frame bicycles, even
> those that start at $795. However, the LBS that does maintenance and
> repair on commuter bicycles might do well as people look for cheap
> alternative transportation.

Way to bring down the newsgroup.

8-O

 

[Luke]

In article <[email protected]>, Werehatrack
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On 15 Jan 2006 21:26:44 -0800, "oilfreeandhappy"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Here's some interesting facts from the CIA factbook. I've only chosen
> >comparisons between the US, Europe and Australia.
> >
> >Population (2005): EU: 457 Million, US: 296 Million, Australia: 20
> >Million
> >Oil Consumption: EU: 14.5 Million BBLS, US: 19.6 Million BBLS,
> >Australia: 796,000 BBLS
>
> I believe that's a daily figure.
>
> >GDP: EU: 11.65 Trillion, US: 11.75 Trillion, Australia: 612 Billion
> >
> >Dividing some of these figures:
> >Oil Consumption per person: EU: .032 BBL/person, US: .066 BBL/person
> > Australia: .040 BBL/person
>
> Obviously daily.
>
> >GDP/BBL of oil: EU: $800,000 / BBL, US: $600,000 / BBL, Australia:
> >$769,000 / BBL
>
> Divide by 365 for annualized rate.

It would be interesting to know the discrepancies in the cost of
gasoline for the areas listed. I believe Americans benefit - or suffer!
- by the least expensive gasoline in the industrialized world; and as
the popularity of SUVs in America attests, lower gas prices tend to
encourage greater consumption. Also noteworthy, the percentage of oil
consumption attributed to gasoline use.

Luke

 

[Dave Larrington]

In article <[email protected]>, Wayne Pein
([email protected]) wrote:
> Dave Larrington wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, Wayne Pein
> > ([email protected]) wrote:
> >
> >>Chalo wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>oilfreeandhappy wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I agree. Some hard data should be forthcoming to back that statement.
> >>>>However, I have read that airlines do use more fuel than if all the
> >>>>occupants drove cars. This was stated in a Worldwatch Institute
> >>>>article.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Well, yeah. The Space Shuttle proabably uses more fuel per
> >>>passenger-mile than a car, too. But we're talking about trains and
> >>>buses here. I'd be very, very surprised if Wayne isn't either making
> >>>stuff up or repeating some outright lie put forth by the very active
> >>>and well-financed anti-transit lobby.
> >>>
> >>>Chalo Colina
> >>>
> >>
> >>Now is that nice, accusing me of making things up?
> >>
> >>http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/favorites/fcvt_fotw221.shtml
> >>shows the energy intensity of rail. Bus transit is similar.
> >>
> >>If there are 125,000 BTUs in a gallon of gas, a car that gets 25 mpg
> >>with just the drvier in it gets 5000 BTU per passenger mile, right
> >>within the range of public transit.
> >>
> >>The energy savings of most public transit is a popular myth.
> >
> >
> > May we draw Sir's attention to this:
> >
> > <URL:http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/
> > 2003/html/table_04_15.html>
> >
> > ?
> >
> > It doesn't require many passengers before the per-capita fuel
> > consumption of a bus is less than that of the single-occupancy SUV in an
> > urban environment with which the US is littered. Approximately two, I'd
> > reckon.
> >
>
> More like 5.

If Sir is seriously believes that SUV's, or indeed almost any petrol-
engined motor vehicle, gets 34 miles to the gallon - even one of those
sawn-down Leftpondian gallons - around town, then I fear Sir is this:
wrong. Offical figures for a mid-range Ford Mondeo, for example, give
an urban cycle fuel consumption of less than 22 miles per US gallon,
approximately one-third of that for buses listed in the page referred to
above.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Nicht in die laufende Trommel greifen.

 

[Wayne Pein]

Dave Larrington wrote:


>
>
> If Sir is seriously believes that SUV's, or indeed almost any petrol-
> engined motor vehicle, gets 34 miles to the gallon - even one of those
> sawn-down Leftpondian gallons - around town, then I fear Sir is this:
> wrong. Offical figures for a mid-range Ford Mondeo, for example, give
> an urban cycle fuel consumption of less than 22 miles per US gallon,
> approximately one-third of that for buses listed in the page referred to
> above.
>

Sir, your blathering is irrelevant to the question at hand. The US
government shows that both busses and passenger cars have an energy
intensity of about 3500 BTUs per passenger mile. The data is robust
across many years. That means that on average a person taking public
transit is responsible for the same fuel consumption as car users. Take
your arguments to the government.

Wayne

 

[[email protected]]

Wayne Pein wrote:
> across many years. That means that on average a person taking public
> transit is responsible for the same fuel consumption as car users. Take
> your arguments to the government.
>

Although, by your arguments, the marginal cost of a person taking
transit is essentially zero, since a bus with 100 passengers consumes
almost the same as a bus with 99 passengers.

 

[oilfreeandhappy]

Let's not forgot about the big picture:

1. 65% of the oil used in the US is imported, most of it from the other

side of the world. This oil is shipped in tankers which use vast
amounts of oil. Electricity is mostly powered from local
fuels/sources.

2. Incredible amounts of oil and other types of energy are used in road

paving and repair.

3. Steel manufacture is a major user of all types of energy.
Automobiles, bridges, roads (many road surfaces have steel grids in the

form of rebar or heavy gage cables), barriers are all comprised of
steel. Yes, light rail uses steel, but much less. Once the tracks are

laid, that's it, and the life of railcars is much longer than
automobiles.

 

[Ron Ruff]

I wouldn't expect a large segment of the population to pedal a bike
back and forth to work or the store... even if decent "paths" were
available. Too sweaty (especially in the summer) and exposed to the
weather.

But, do we really need huge expensive machines that weigh a ton or 5,
to move around our nominally under 200lb bodies? That is the crazy
thing. For getting around town, a very small and light vehicle would be
sufficient... something like a velomobile with an electric powerplant
capable of 30mph or so and a 30mph range would be great. If these were
mass produced they would surely cost $2k or less, and get the
equivalent of hundreds of mpg.

Imagine how much safer, quieter, and less congested our urban areas
would be if vehicles of this sort were used... rather than what we have
now.

The biggest problem I think, is that few would feel safe sharing the
road with trucks and SUVs that could easily run right over them... so
some kind of dedicated roads or paths would be necessary. These would
be quite inexpensive since they would not need to support much weight.
Some of these paths could have inductive charging built in so that the
range of the vehicles would be unlimited.

Unfortunately, I don't see much chance of this ever being done. The
corporate infrastructure would never let it happen, since any form of
downsizing or improvement in efficiency cuts into their profits. No, I
see the campaign for more, more, more! (especially more waste)
continuing....