Dave wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:


Conservation does not result in independence.

Whereas resource exploitation increases dependence.



Not if you own the resource.


What about CO2?

You expel CO2 (besides other noxious gases), please Rickets, stop breathing!

Bob wrote:

The problem with electric cars is where the electricity comes from.
In hybrids, it comes from regen

Not quite true. The electricity used by an electric car does -not- "come
from regen" [erative braking]. This is a clever technique to recapture a
bit of energy when braking. To believe otherwise is akin to believing in
perpetual motion. The vast majority of the energy an electric car uses
is from either a power plant [the 'grid'] or from the on-board gasoline
tank that powers an internal combustion engine/generator.

If we all start plugging our cars into the grid, most of that
electricity comes from fossil fueled facilities, and under current
political climate any added generation would almost certainly be oil
or gas fired.

True, but the good news is, instead of trying to control pollution at
-millions- of individual cars, you are controlling pollution at just
hundreds or thousands of power plants.

Nuclear is a dirty word, and so is any type of coal...

Yup...nuclear is tough because the waste is so dangerous and lasts so
long. Now coal...well, that might not be too bad because you are working
with just hundreds or thousands of power plants; and scrubber and
precipitator technology has come a long way. It's waaay easier and safer
to store fly ash rather than nuclear waste.

In article ,
Dave wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:


Conservation does not result in independence.

Whereas resource exploitation increases dependence.



Not if you own the resource.


What about CO2? What about the air? It's like we're squeezing our eyes
shut and flooring it...

What about the crap you breath into your lungs on a regular basis? All
that tar, which is in far greater amounts that tobacco just to name one
thing Mr. Pipe smoker.

You keep this up and you will have to have carbon credits just to smoke
your dope.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

D Peter Maus wrote:
John Barnard wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
Dave wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Jul 12, 10:14 am, Dave wrote:
- - RHF wrote:
- -
- - RHF Replies : Dave - No !
- - More Drilling in the USofA ia Helping Every Day and
- - in US States like North Dakota : New Oil Wells are
- - Creating New Millionaires right here in the US
- - versus- Enriching the Saudis and Funding Al Qaeda
- - and the Islam-O-Fascist Terrorists.

- WTF is an "Islam-O-Fascist"?

-wrt- Islamofascism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism

- Conservation is the only way to quickly reduce prices.
- Period.

Dave - 'Increased Supply' and 'Reduced Demand'
is the only way to permanently Reduce Prices [.]

The one thing that personal 'conservation' does is to
Reduce your overall Personal {out-fo-pocket} Cost to
You in the Short Term.

OLD - You Driving 600 Miles @ 20MPG and using 30 Gallons
of Gas a Week @ $4.00 per Gallon with a Total Weekly Cost
of $120 for Gas.

NEW - You Driving 450 Miles @ 20MPG and using 22.5 Gallons
of Gas a Week @ $4.00 per Gallon with a Total Weekly Cost
of $90 for Gas.

RESULT - Your personal Reduction of 150 Miles Driven
by 25% results in a Personal Cost Savings of 25% ~$30
per Week.

The ONLY WAY Conservation Works : Is When It Is Done
Equally By All : That Takes Some Form of Mandatory
Restrictions {Rationing} on Gas Use Age for All Drivers.

You are wrong. Raising prices forces conservation just as well as
some stupid rule.


Conservation does not result in independence.

Whereas resource exploitation increases dependence.



Not if you own the resource.


I assume that you've never been out to the tar sands . And if you need
to go out of your way to exploit something then you are still addicted
to it. And some may question the wisdom of having a oil rigs in an area
of considerable tectonic activity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Q...rs_1963-98.png

JB

On Jul 13, 10:16*am, Billy Burpelson wrote:
Bob wrote:
The problem with electric cars is where the electricity comes from.
In hybrids, it comes from regen

Not quite true. The electricity used by an electric car does -not- "come
from regen" [erative braking]. This is a clever technique to recapture a
bit of energy when braking. To believe otherwise is akin to believing in
perpetual motion. The vast majority of the energy an electric car uses
is from either a power plant [the 'grid'] or from the on-board gasoline
tank that powers an internal combustion engine/generator.

That's why I said "in hybrids" when I mentioned regen...

The other concern is the losses in the grid distribution. We use oil
based fuels to generate electricity at a conversion loss and then lose
more in line losses. The emmisions in today's ulev cars are getting
down there. I guess I'd just like some common sense inserted into the
discussion and some real energy balance calculations made to help
clarify things. It seems that the politicians and environmentalists
aren't too interested in other scientific input.

Bob

On Jul 13, 7:16*am, Billy Burpelson wrote:
Bob wrote:
The problem with electric cars is where the electricity comes from.
In hybrids, it comes from regen

Not quite true. The electricity used by an electric car does -not- "come
from regen" [erative braking]. This is a clever technique to recapture a
bit of energy when braking. To believe otherwise is akin to believing in
perpetual motion. The vast majority of the energy an electric car uses
is from either a power plant [the 'grid'] or from the on-board gasoline
tank that powers an internal combustion engine/generator.

If we all start plugging our cars into the grid, most of that
electricity comes from fossil fueled facilities, and under current
political climate any added generation would almost certainly be oil
or gas fired.

True, but the good news is, instead of trying to control pollution at
-millions- of individual cars, you are controlling pollution at just
hundreds or thousands of power plants.

Nuclear is a dirty word, and so is any type of coal...

Yup...nuclear is tough because the waste is so dangerous and lasts so
long. Now coal...well, that might not be too bad because you are working
with just hundreds or thousands of power plants; and scrubber and
precipitator technology has come a long way. It's waaay easier and safer
to store fly ash rather than nuclear waste.

Variable Demand Generators Automobile Gas Engines
-versus- Fixed Load Generators Electric Power Plants
and Constant Speed Gas Engines.

Automobile Gas Engines are Variable Demand Generators
and as such as the Engine Accelerates and Decelerates
they Polute more and are less Efficient then when they
are run at a Fix Speed and Load.

Fixed Load Generators Electric Power Plants and Constant
Speed Gas Engines do not constantly accelerate and
decelerate; so then can be Engineered to have less Polution
and better Efficiency for their designed output.

All Electric Cars from an Air Polution perspective Polute Less;
while the amount of Fossil Fuels that they consume to produce
the Electricity versus a Gas Engine Car may be about Equal.

NOTE - Gas Engine Cars use Imported Oil versus Electric Power
Plants can use All-American Hyrdo and Coal; and North American
Natual Gas {Just Say No To Imported Oil}; and Re-Newable
Wind and Solar.

Hybrid Cars with a Dual-Mode Power Plant using Gas and
Electric are proven to be Less Poluting and More Fuel Efficient.

A Fuel Cell Powered Vehicle would be even Less Poluting
and More Fuel Efficient then a Hybrid Car.

TIP - Where and when 'possible' Walking is better for you
then Driving in any Vehicle.

Walk for Your Health and a Long Life. ~ RHF
{Walk A Mile A Day To Save The Planet and Yourself}

RHF wrote:

On Jul 13, 7:16 am, Billy Burpelson wrote:
Bob wrote:
The problem with electric cars is where the electricity comes from.
In hybrids, it comes from regen

Not quite true. The electricity used by an electric car does -not- "come
from regen" [erative braking]. This is a clever technique to recapture a
bit of energy when braking. To believe otherwise is akin to believing in
perpetual motion. The vast majority of the energy an electric car uses
is from either a power plant [the 'grid'] or from the on-board gasoline
tank that powers an internal combustion engine/generator.

If we all start plugging our cars into the grid, most of that
electricity comes from fossil fueled facilities, and under current
political climate any added generation would almost certainly be oil
or gas fired.

True, but the good news is, instead of trying to control pollution at
-millions- of individual cars, you are controlling pollution at just
hundreds or thousands of power plants.

Nuclear is a dirty word, and so is any type of coal...

Yup...nuclear is tough because the waste is so dangerous and lasts so
long. Now coal...well, that might not be too bad because you are working
with just hundreds or thousands of power plants; and scrubber and
precipitator technology has come a long way. It's waaay easier and safer
to store fly ash rather than nuclear waste.

Variable Demand Generators Automobile Gas Engines
-versus- Fixed Load Generators Electric Power Plants
and Constant Speed Gas Engines.

Automobile Gas Engines are Variable Demand Generators
and as such as the Engine Accelerates and Decelerates
they Polute more and are less Efficient then when they
are run at a Fix Speed and Load.

Fixed Load Generators Electric Power Plants and Constant
Speed Gas Engines do not constantly accelerate and
decelerate; so then can be Engineered to have less Polution
and better Efficiency for their designed output.

All Electric Cars from an Air Polution perspective Polute Less;
while the amount of Fossil Fuels that they consume to produce
the Electricity versus a Gas Engine Car may be about Equal.

NOTE - Gas Engine Cars use Imported Oil versus Electric Power
Plants can use All-American Hyrdo and Coal; and North American
Natual Gas {Just Say No To Imported Oil}; and Re-Newable
Wind and Solar.

Hybrid Cars with a Dual-Mode Power Plant using Gas and
Electric are proven to be Less Poluting and More Fuel Efficient.

A Fuel Cell Powered Vehicle would be even Less Poluting
and More Fuel Efficient then a Hybrid Car.

TIP - Where and when 'possible' Walking is better for you
then Driving in any Vehicle.

Walk for Your Health and a Long Life. ~ RHF
{Walk A Mile A Day To Save The Planet and Yourself}

Uh, the planet doesn't need 'saving'. It's been taking care of itself for far,
far longer than we've been here, and will most likely be taking care of itself
long after we're gone.

To think otherwise is delusional.

On Jul 12, 10:54*pm, John Barnard wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
Dave wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Jul 12, 10:14 am, Dave wrote:
- - RHF wrote:
- -
- - RHF Replies : Dave - No !
- - More Drilling in the USofA ia Helping Every Day and
- - in US States like North Dakota : New Oil Wells are
- - Creating New Millionaires right here in the US
- - versus- Enriching the Saudis and Funding Al Qaeda
- - and the Islam-O-Fascist Terrorists.

- WTF is an "Islam-O-Fascist"?

-wrt- Islamofascism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism

- Conservation is the only way to quickly reduce prices.
- Period.

Dave - 'Increased Supply' and 'Reduced Demand'
is the only way to permanently Reduce Prices [.]

The one thing that personal 'conservation' does is to
Reduce your overall Personal {out-fo-pocket} Cost to
You in the Short Term.

OLD - You Driving 600 Miles @ 20MPG and using 30 Gallons
of Gas a Week @ $4.00 per Gallon with a Total Weekly Cost
of $120 for Gas.

NEW - You Driving 450 Miles @ 20MPG and using 22.5 Gallons
of Gas a Week @ $4.00 per Gallon with a Total Weekly Cost
of $90 for Gas.

RESULT - Your personal Reduction of 150 Miles Driven
by 25% results in a Personal Cost Savings of 25% ~$30
per Week.

The ONLY WAY Conservation Works : Is When It Is Done
Equally By All : That Takes Some Form of Mandatory
Restrictions {Rationing} on Gas Use Age for All Drivers.

- - - You are wrong. *Raising prices forces conservation
- - - just as well as some stupid rule.

Raising Prices In-and-of-Itself Through Taxes and Fees :
IS A TAX HIKE and a Rip-Off of the Consumer [.]

Raising Prices Through Taxes and Fees -and- Providing
Incentives for 'other' Activities to Reduce Consumption :
IS GOOD ENERGY POLICY.

- - Conservation does not result in independence.

However it does result in 'less' Dependence.

- Whereas resource exploitation increases dependence.

Inter -versus- Intra
http://www.bartleby.com/68/58/3358.html

All-American Intra-Dependence and North American Energy
Intra-Dependence is far better than Global {Imported Foreign
Oil} Inter-Dependence.

~ RHF

On Jul 13, 6:04*am, Dave wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

* Conservation does not result in independence.

*Whereas resource exploitation increases dependence.

* *Not if you own the resource.

What about CO2? *What about the air? *It's like we're squeezing our eyes
shut and flooring it...

Dave It's Time For You To Get Out And Walk !

It Will Clear Your Head and Aid Your Health .

live well and be healthy ~ RHF

On Jul 13, 11:40*am, Telamon
wrote:
In article ,

*Dave wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

* Conservation does not result in independence.

*Whereas resource exploitation increases dependence.

* *Not if you own the resource.

What about CO2? *What about the air? *It's like we're squeezing our eyes
shut and flooring it...

What about the crap you breath into your lungs on a regular basis? All
that tar, which is in far greater amounts that tobacco just to name one
thing Mr. Pipe smoker.

You keep this up and you will have to have carbon credits just to smoke
your dope.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Yeah Dave - Pot Smoking Causes Air Polution [.]

Just Say No To Second Hand Pot Smoke ~ RHF