| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
October 6th 05, 11:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#2
October 7th 05, 03:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. In how many years? 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. For 17 years I drove a VW Rabbit Diesel. Over 40 mpg in the worst kind of city driving, well over 50 mpg on the highway. Met all the pollution requirements too. With technology from the late 1970s. 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". Yup - also "we'll pay whatever it costs" and "we'll support all kinds of not-so-nice regimes, even fight wars, as long as they keep the oil flowing" Most of all: "We don't have any sort of plan to become energy-independent or even less dependent in the long term" 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. Lots of people could use an inexpensive electric car for local use. But there's no serious program to develop one. GM had some electric Saturns for a while, and their owners loved 'em, but they ended the program early. The hybrids are quite expensive. New technology usually is - at first. The hydrogen-powered car won't be viable until we can produce hydrogen cheaply. Don't hold yer breath... What kind of leadership would you like to see? How about: 1) Tax credits for energy efficient investments, such as high MPG cars, high efficiency heating and cooling units, high efficiency appliances, etc. We used to have them... 2) A long term program to *seriously* develop energy efficient systems like electric cars, wind and solar energy, new energy sources like thermal depolymerization (TDP), etc. 3) Community planning that makes us less dependent on cars. Transit systems that work. Design for sustainable technology rather than for show. 4) An emphasis on conservation and efficiency rather than conspicuous consumption. 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? He seems to have the clout to say it will be. Why not the opposite? *WHY* should we all pay to rebuild a city below sea level in a hurricane zone? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#3
November 20th 05, 03:57 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
BTW Stevie were watch the news lately about NASA
wrote in message oups.com... He seems to have the clout to say it will be. Why not the opposite? *WHY* should we all pay to rebuild a city below sea level in a hurricane zone? 73 de Jim, N2EY OMG!!!!!!! Howdy all and Happy Thanksgiving coming up. I know this is an old post (from Oct) and I'll see if I can follow it to current, but just opening messages randomly and saw this sentiment. Hooray, Jim, for saying that. Exactly. Man, down here in the Dallas area, people are seething (OK, maybe not seething, but they're pretty darned po'ed) about this whole situation. We have people out of work, homeless, distraught, etc., every day all day here. And, when the disaster happens, suddenly compassion must go out. Not saying the poor folks wrapped up in this tragedy don't deserve compassion. They do. But, what in the world is the deal with this? As I said, people are struggling every day--and it didn't take a disaster to ge them the they live this every day for whatever reason. News around here shows the evacuees (they didn't want to be called refugees) are thankless, asking for more, and say they DESERVE whatever "we" can get and give for them!!?? PAH!!! I'll tend to myself and they can, too. We've got motel/hotel rooms, apts, homes, etc., with the folks living in them who've been sitting on their royal you-know-whats and, now that FEMA said assistance would end Dec 1--they (the evacuees) have decided that they need to go find work, find new homes, etc. EXCUSE ME??!! Shoulda been out there longer ago than now. I don't know. It's one huge messed up siteeashun down heeya. And, those of us who were forced (by way of tax dollars) to support the lunacy that's been behind the assistance, are fed up. NO, we DON'T need to support any rebuilding in a hurricane zone. Period. (Although a lot of trade and commerce goes through the port...what about that?) Kim W5TIT ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#4
October 7th 05, 03:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. 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. 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. 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... 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. 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. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#5
October 7th 05, 04:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. 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. I know a number of pickup truck owners hereabouts, who are buying small cars. Nobody is building underinsulated anything these days. 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. 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. 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. 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. Dave K8MN |
|
#6
October 7th 05, 11:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. The danger is what happens if they decide not to sell it. Or jack up the price. Or require all sorts of conditions. Most of all, there's what they do with the money. Buying anyhting from anyone empowers that person to do things, some of which you may not like. 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. At what cost per btu of hydrogen produced? 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. I know a number of pickup truck owners hereabouts, who are buying small cars. Nobody is building underinsulated anything these days. The problem is that we have an enormous existing stock of cars, trucks and houses, and it won't turn over so fast. We've been this way before, too. You'd think we'd have learned. 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. Most of which is electricity to run the pumps. Those who have big, old homes will sell 'em to someone who can afford to heat them. If they can. 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. My lease agreement with Columbia Gas provides me with 300,000 cubic feet of gas yearly. I'm barely using more than half. Not everyone can live atop a gas well. 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. But not blizzard-proof. Nor drunken-oil-tanker-captain-proof. Nor can it provide near enough oil to solve the problem. Nobody wants to discuss one of the real solutions to sufficient energy: more nuke reactors. Are they a real solution? How much does it cost to extract the fuel to run them? How much to build and operate them? How much to decomission after they are worn out? How much to deal with the waste? A lot of those costs have been hidden from the utility customer. 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. Not really. 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. The problem isn't the choice. It's the fact that we are expected to fund and support other people's bad choices. The factor that is forgotten here is that almost all construction requires permits, insurance and financing. Government gives the permits, and has an influence on the insurance and financing. How many people will choose to rebuild in NO if the govt says that the whole thing is a bad idea and they're not going to fix the levees, nor provide new flood insurance for below-sea-level construction? Suppose I were to build a house whose roof could not stand the snow loads encountered here in EPA in a bad winter. And suppose a bad winter came along and the roof collapsed. Should I expect the govt. to pay to rebuild my roof? Worse - should I expect that they would allow me to build it the same way again? Of course the above isn't likely to happen because I'd never get a permit nor pass inspection to put up such an inadequate structure. But the principle is the same as building below sea level in a flood zone. One thing's for su We'll not see leadership on this issue from the current administration. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#7
October 9th 05, 06:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#8
October 7th 05, 06:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 - |
|
#9
October 8th 05, 05:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#10
October 8th 05, 06:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Heil wrote:
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. Dave, Electricity supply doesn't work like that. The production adjusts itself to the load. If the load decreases, so does production. There is no waste from reduced loading. In fact, if the load goes down enough, utilities shut down their least-efficient plants. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Beware of hams planting dis-information... | CB | |||
| Utillity freq List; | Shortwave | |||
| Open Letter to K1MAN | Policy | |||
Hybrid Mode
