Dave Heil wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
"THOSE" cars have been pretty much standard for 20 years now...
Yet they still burn gasoline and other petroleum based fuels. The fleet
mileage standards are not improving. The USA imports much more energy
(almost all of it in the form of oil and natural gas) than in the
1970s.
My mileage standards are doing fine. I'm on my third Dodge Neon.
The 2 liter engine delivers about 33 mpg on the highway. I'm tall
but I have 4 or 5 inches of space between the top of my head and the
roof of the car.
Yes, the U.S.A. imports more oil than it produces. It looks as if we
*do* have an energy policy and part of it seems to be, "Let's use
theirs before we use ours".
Well, if that is our game plan, we better have enough reserves to
fight most of the world off. Otherwise it is dangerous brinkmanship.
The countries which produce oil are interested in selling it. We're
interested in buying it. I don't see any danger in that at all.
There is another market these days which would be more than happy to
buy the oil we purchase. We aren't the only game in town any more.
Why isn't there a massive program to solve our energy problems? The
White House has been in the hands of a former oilman for more than half
a decade now. You'd think there's be some understanding of what needs
to be done for the future, but where's the leadership?
Well, we aren't going to be driving electrics because of limited
range. The hybrids are quite expensive. The hydrogen-powered car
won't be viable until we can produce hydrogen cheaply.
I really doubt that H is going to ever be a valid fuel.
I used to think that but I heard a recent radio story which might change
my mind. The South Africans are developing a "pellet bed" small nuclear
reactor. Tennis ball-sized spheres of graphite and ceramic are packed
with yellow cake. Core temps can never get hot enough for meltdown but
are high enough to produce hydrogen and to desalinate sea water.
What kind of leadership would you like to see?
I would like to see some leadership realizing that driving single
digit fuel millage SUV's is an unpatriotic act, that building under
insulated McMansions that take immense amounts of energy to heat is an
unpatriotic act.
Naaaah. Those who drive the SUVs are being bitten in the wallet.
Sure. But they are also using up a critical strategic resource,
contributing to the imbalance of trade, and other things like that. Some
patriots.
I
know a number of pickup truck owners hereabouts, who are buying small
cars. Nobody is building underinsulated anything these days.
Hmm, I suggest you come up to my area after a snowstorm. On most of the
McMansions, the snow is gone a few hours after the storm. The same snow
on my roof would be there for a week or so.
There is a wierd thing going on in my area, and I guess others as well.
Conserving activities are seen as a liberal thing, and seems to be a
litmus test. I knew a woman on campus that refused to recycle because
"it just encourages the liberals". So we get the same thing with
automobiles and house insulation. But we definitely have a lot of big
houses that appear to have no insulation (or very little) in the house.
My pal
W8RHM built his dream home three years ago. It is large and it has
geothermal heating. The heating system was supposed to pay for itself
within ten years or so. With the energy hikes of the past few years,
it'll be paid off much sooner. 'RHM is now paying winter heating bills
of 45-65 bucks. Those who have big, old homes will sell 'em to someone
who can afford to heat them.
As long as there are people who can afford to heat 'em. My prediction
is that they will become white elephants.
The way we are with oil and gas in recent times reminds me of the
legendary lighting of cigars with 100 dollar bills. In yo' face
consumption...
You may feel free to paint me with that brush.
Fiesty, Dave? I apologize if you think I was painting you as anything.
I doubt most Neon drivers are profligate energy wasters.
My lease agreement with
Columbia Gas provides me with 300,000 cubic feet of gas yearly. I'm
barely using more than half.
I'm heating a glassed-in side porch and a workshop in the barn. As soon
as I get around to it, I'm adding a greenhouse lean to on the back of
the barn. I've a gas conversion kit for a gasoline generator. In
short, I'm going to very conspicuously use right up to that 300,000
cubic feet and I'm not going to feel any guilt over it at all.
I think that one critical lesson that should be gleaned from these
two hurricanes this summer is that we are incredibly vulnerable in a
few important areas. under the right circumstances, losing that much
oil and gas production could be a near fatal blow.
That's right. We need to drill in more places. ANWAR should be
hurricane proof.
Nobody wants to discuss one of the real solutions to sufficient energy:
more nuke reactors.
The way I see it, in the not too distant future, we will make a choice:
1. Rely on Nuclear power and build a lot more plants.
2. Go back to the middle ages.
It's just about that simple. While people can conserve energy, I doubt
that they can conserve enough. The US has around 300 million people
right now. We will be at 400 million around 35 years from now. Can all
of us cut back 25 percent in energy usage? And that would be to just
tread water. Not to mention finding fossil fuels that will allow us to
continue our present "burn rate". Pun intended.
I support the alternative energy production modes. But we have to be
realistic. They are a localized phenomenon, and won't likely be a major
solution
I say the best thing to do now is to *not* rebuild the parts of NO that
are below sea level. Salvage what can be saved, and move away.
Will Our President exhibit leadership and say that's what should be
done? Or will he make exorbitant promises, pouring much more money into
rebuilding than it would take to relocate?
Do you really think that the POTUS has the clout to declare that NOLA
won't be rebuilt?
Nope. New Orleans will be rebuilt, and will be rebuilt again, and
perhaps a third or forth time, until it slips beneath the waves for good.
Yep and people are free to build where they choose. Without the freedom
to make choices, America wouldn't be America. I won't be rushing to buy
a home in New Orleans but most of those folks wouldn't live on a hilltop
in rural West Virginia. That suits their needs...and mine.
I have no problem in principle with a person building their house on
the lava dome of Mt St Helens if they are so inclined. However, I do
have a problem if he wants me to buy his insurance or build him a new
house when the present one burns up because of it's location. Same goes
for building that wonderful vacation retreat on a barrier island or 50
feet from the ocean. That land is transient, and IMO so is any human
structure built on it
Do you support paying for these peoples stupidity? (The stupidity is in
my opinion - but a pretty good case can be made for it being stupid)
- Mike KB3EIA -