Michael Coslo wrote:
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.
We've never been the only game in town. Demand sets the price.
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.
They're paying for the critical strategic resource. Before you write
about others contributing to the imbalance of trade sell off all of your
electronic gadgets which are made abroad. Will you have trouble posting
with no computer? You do use only American-made ham gear, right?
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.
America is all about having the freedom to choose. Wisdom isn't
necessaary for those choices, economics is. If I can afford to buy and
heat a large, energy hog of a home, that choice is open to me.
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.
I've never thought of conservation as being just a liberal thing, though
you do appear to be of a liberal bent. Conservation and recycling won't
appeal to a lot of people until economics necessitates it. It doesn't
bother me that some folks have houses which are under-insulated any more
than it bothers me that some folks drive bigger, more expensive cars.
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.
They may and they may not. Someone with a lot of cash may love 'em.
I'd like to be able to afford one myself. Then again, if I had that
much loot, I'd likely have enough to better insulate them.
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.
Feisty? No, I think you may have misinterpreted my words. I meant that
I could easily be painted with that brush. I accept the label. I'm one
of those. I'm guilty of "in your face" consumption of natural gas.
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.
Precisely.
It's just about that simple. While people can conserve energy, I doubt
that they can conserve enough.
If you're talking about electrical energy, any of it which is produced
but not consumed, is wasted energy. I can turn off my appliances and
lights, but if no one else uses the electricity I'm not using, it is wasted.
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?
I think I've already done that with electrical energy. I have efficient
appliances and almost all of the light in my home is by fluorescent
bulbs. I've installed a programmable thermostat for the a/c.
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.
Your state and mine have quite a supply of coal and natural gas, along
with pretty good supplies of petroleum.
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
If a guy with a wind turbine or solar panels makes the effort, I'm for
him. We can't all do it.
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.
I agree.
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.
Again, I agree.
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
All human life and all human structures are transient, no matter where
they are built.
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)
No, I don't support my paying for it or your paying for it or government
paying for it. I support the freedom to choose. That freedom comes
with responsibility.
Dave K8MN