Global Warming The debbil made me do it

On Mar 14, 6:58 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Dan" wrote:

The US already has nuclear power.

Bertie

Just not enough of it.

Indeed.

Times and technology have changed; time to ramp up nuclear infrastructure.

Still have to get past the NIMBY problem with the waste, though. And other
problems...

"There is a possible impediment to production of nuclear power plants, due to
a backlog at Japan Steel Works, the only factory in the world able to
manufacture the central part of a nuclear reactor's containment vessel in a
single piece, which reduces the risk of a radiation leak. The company can only
make four per year of the steel forgings, which contain radioactivity in a
nuclear reactor. It will double its capacity in the next two years, but still
will not be able to to meet current global ddemand promptly. Utilities across
the world are submitting orders years in advance of any actual need. Other
manufacturers are examining various options, including making the component
themselves, or finding ways to make a similar item using alternate methods. "

-Wikipedia

I'm more than confident that we can quickly ramp up to meet this need
domestically if there is adequate demand.

With all due respect to whatever writer posted that wikipedia entry --
We haven't forgotten how to make steel in Pittsburgh.

Dan Mc

After I am finished at the office at noon I am going to the airport
and gasp start two engines count em and go out and wildly blow
enough dino dung out the exhaust to send the climate to temperatures
that might even bring the dinosaurs back... T. Rex will worship me...
And I will continue to do this as long as I have breath and enough
money to by fuel...

Amen, brother! Hallelujah!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:45:58 GMT, Jay Maynard
wrote:

On 2008-03-14, Roger wrote:
If we all just practiced conservation there would be no need for new
power plants and we could eliminate the need for importing crude to
use in auto fuel. That part is simple math. Raising the fleet
average to 30 MPG would be far more than sufficient to make us
independent of foreign oil for fuel.

That's not conservation, that's deprivation.

Not true.

Raising the fleet average to 30 MPG would require replacing a large portion
of the fleet with European-style econoboxes. Simple physics will tell you

Most mid size cars could be quite capable of getting 30 plus with fuel
efficient engines. There is no need to remove the large trucks. We
are talking "fleet average," not the mileage of every truck.

You use common sense. Those that can do so, could use the hybrids.
Those that really need the larger vans and SUVs could still use them
and the trucks could still remain. IOW we use what we need , not what
we think we'd like. Sure, I'd like a Hummer (I'm referring to the
4-wheel kind), or a new SUV for hauling all the stuff around I usually
have with me, but for the vast majority of trips I don't need anything
larger than my wife's Hybrid. Nor does every family with kids in
sports need a super long van. It's time these people learn about car
pooling.

that that's going to dramatically lower fleet safety, especially in light of

Why. They have found that the small car against the large may not
fare well, but the large SUVs against another large SUV fares even
worse. Today's cars, even the small ones are far safer than those of
say 30 or 40 years ago when I was driving a 5600# Pontiac Bonneville
convertible. Back then cars were BIG.

A few years back I took a full size GMC SUV broadside at cruise speed.
Yes it totaled my Transam. BUT other than being punchier than two
6-packs on an empty stomach I didn't even get bruised. The driver of
the SUV ended up in the hospital. With education and attitude there
is no need for the hybrids to be unsafe.

the massive numbers of large commercial trucks that would still be needed to

You don't have to get rid of the commercial trucks. The fleet average
can nicely be taken care of by the cars.

transport goods. (Getting rid of those would *really* wreck the economy in
short order.) There's also the minor matter of the mission profiles of many
folks, who a European econobox simply won't fit.

You don't need to go to the little econoboxes.


With 120 million family homes switching the incandescent lights to CFLs
would eliminate the need for roughly some where between 4 and 6 electric
generation plants. That would free up part of the electric grid so it
could be used to power electric cars which at current rates for most of
the country (excluding California) make the cost of operating one a
fraction of a gas powered car.

It would also generate a booming market in hazmat remediation, as common

Pure BS.
There is so little mercury in a CFL you sweep 'em up, put in a plastic
bag and properly dispose. Air out the room if paranoid.

household accidents that would result in lamp breakage turn into major
environmental disasters...not to mention simply disposing of them when they
finally do burn out.

As for the electric car, let me once again use those two magic words:
"mission profile". I'll consider one when I can get one that will go 400

No one said use the electric car for long trips hauling heavy loads.
The average trip made by cars is short and typically round trip to
work, or in to see the kids play what ever sport. Car pooling could
take care of a lot this.

OTOH we have both a Hybrid that I mentioned gets 46-47 MPG
average.(winter/summer) and an SUV that gets 18 MPG. Normally the
Hybrid gets used and it'll haul 4 adults comfortably unless you try to
put two really tall ones in the back seat. 2, 6 footers with normal
leg length would fit comfortably. At any rate, we still have the SUV
but our mileage happens to be well above 30 MPG for any given period.

However for those that need the extra room and load capacity they
could still have it. I reiterate, FLEET AVERAGE does not mean every
car and tuck has to get that mileage. It's expected that all of them
averaged together would get that. Big difference.

miles on a charge, while hauling four people and a substantial amount of
stuff, and recharge in 10 minutes so I can go 400 more. My current vehicle
will do that quite easily, and I bought it because I need that capability.

This is the typical "all or nothing" argument against better mileage
or conservation. When it comes to the cars on the road, most of us
don't need a big pickup truck, monster SUV or 5,000# luxury car.
Getting rid of all but the ones needed would not ruin the economy.
Yes,I have an SUV but I only drive it when needed. Going to smaller
cars for the ones who can would not have any great impact on safety
and changing to CFLs to be followed by LEDs would not create a great
boom in hazmat teams. Of course the LEDs are far preferable over
CFLs, but they are currently very expensive. Give 'em a couple years
and they just might be on par with today's CFL, but far more efficient
and almost indefinite life with very little heat given off and no
starter required.

The greatest impact on safety would be getting the public to quit
accepting a yearly highway death toll of between 40 and 50,000 as
acceptable. Maybe the biggest at present would be to build a jamming
device to prevent cell phones being used while the car is in motion
and education. Although when it comes to education it's more one of
changing attitudes. We have big problems with people making up their
own rules of the road. Speaking of which, do they still teach those
in driver's ed?.

Today there seems to be an element in society that fights any change
to improve things. They argue endlessly against global warming and
mankind's contribution, yet mainstream science has all but accepted it
even in face of our government's efforts to deny its existence.

When it comes to conservation there are endless excuses as to why we
can't or shouldn't do it, but we can save money and safely have a
cleaner more healthy environment. The catch is we have to be willing
to take responsibility and work to achieve these ends.

Nothing comes without some kind of cost including "business as usual"
which probably has the highest long term cost of any option.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 04:37:13 -0700 (PDT), Denny
wrote:

snip

After I am finished at the office at noon I am going to the airport
and gasp start two engines count em and go out and wildly blow
enough dino dung out the exhaust to send the climate to temperatures
that might even bring the dinosaurs back... T. Rex will worship me...
And I will continue to do this as long as I have breath and enough
money to by fuel...

One of the things I like about Denny; you always know where he stands.
Another is he doesn't come up with a buch of lame assed excuses.


denny
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mar 14, 10:05 pm, Roger wrote:

With education and attitude there
is no need for the hybrids to be unsafe.

It's not me I'm worried about when I drive. It's the multiple mental
deficients who drive drunk, pass on turns or before the crest if a
hill, drive too fast for conditions (usually on bald tires), blow
through stop signs and lights, ad nauseum.

They've certainly been (minimally) "educated," but they are rolling
hazards until they finally plow into a tree or take out an innocent
coming around the back side of the same turn.

If I could afford it, I would drive an M1-Abrams -- the speed is good,
the comfort is very good, the brakes are awesome, and the main gun is
stabilized.

I wouldn't drive a HMMWV if you gave it to me (now if I still had a
driver -- maybe)


Dan Mc

On 2008-03-15, Roger wrote:
Most mid size cars could be quite capable of getting 30 plus with fuel
efficient engines. There is no need to remove the large trucks. We
are talking "fleet average," not the mileage of every truck.

There are a nontrivial number of trucks, and 4-6 MPG is the rule rather than
the exception. It takes a lot of econoboxes to counterbalance that.

You use common sense. Those that can do so, could use the hybrids.
Those that really need the larger vans and SUVs could still use them
and the trucks could still remain. IOW we use what we need , not what
we think we'd like.

That's not the way the American system works. The only person entitled to
make a decision as to what vehicle they need to purchase is the buyer. Not
you, not me, not the government, and certainly not some enviro-wacko who
knows nothing about the buyer's needs.

Sure, I'd like a Hummer (I'm referring to the 4-wheel kind),

I wouldn't. I've had an H3 as a rental, and never got comfortable driving
it: you can hardly see out of the passenger side windows from the driver's
seat.

or a new SUV for hauling all the stuff around I usually have with me,

I drive a small SUV because I can only have one vehicle, and need the
capabilities it provides a nontrivial portion of the time. Yes, a Prius
would handle my most common mission, but if it's just more than me and a
minimal amount of stuff (and I do mean minimal: when I've had a Prius as a
rental, the storage area was barely big enough for two carryon-sized
suitcases and a briefcase), then I'm hosed.

but for the vast majority of trips I don't need anything larger than my
wife's Hybrid. Nor does every family with kids in sports need a super
long van. It's time these people learn about car pooling.

Soemone has to have the van to do the carpool in. Why should one person get
stuck with that?

that that's going to dramatically lower fleet safety, especially in light of
Why. They have found that the small car against the large may not
fare well, but the large SUVs against another large SUV fares even
worse. Today's cars, even the small ones are far safer than those of
say 30 or 40 years ago when I was driving a 5600# Pontiac Bonneville
convertible. Back then cars were BIG.

Physics. Yes, cars of the same size are safer today than they were 40 years
ago. A smaller car will stll always come out worse in a collision with a
bigger vehicle than a larger one.

A few years back I took a full size GMC SUV broadside at cruise speed.
Yes it totaled my Transam. BUT other than being punchier than two
6-packs on an empty stomach I didn't even get bruised. The driver of
the SUV ended up in the hospital. With education and attitude there
is no need for the hybrids to be unsafe.

Let me guess: you were wearing the seat belt, and the SUV driver wasn't?
That's not an indictment of the SUV, but of the idiot who wasn't wearing his
seat belt. (I'm a former paramedic. There are a few things I get rabid
about, and seat belts top the list.)

A hybrid SUV might be more fuel efficient than its conventional counterpart.
Then again, it might not be. I looked at the hybrid version of my SUV when I
was first considering buying it, but ruled it out for one simple reason: 95%
of my driving is at highway speed, where a hybrid provides no benefit. The
extra purchase cost, plus the battery replacement at 100K miles (and yes, I
do keep vehicles past that point), far outweighed any possible fuel savings
given my driving needs.

the massive numbers of large commercial trucks that would still be needed to
You don't have to get rid of the commercial trucks. The fleet average
can nicely be taken care of by the cars.

Sure, if you sentence everyone to drive an econobox.

You don't need to go to the little econoboxes.

Either you do that or else you add $6-8K to the price of every car and
significantly cut its cargo capacity by turning it into a hybrid.

It would also generate a booming market in hazmat remediation, as common
Pure BS.
There is so little mercury in a CFL you sweep 'em up, put in a plastic
bag and properly dispose. Air out the room if paranoid.

If that's the case, why is government raising the alarm? See, for example,
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=7431198 .

As for the electric car, let me once again use those two magic words:
"mission profile". I'll consider one when I can get one that will go 400
No one said use the electric car for long trips hauling heavy loads.

If that's the only car I have, I have no choice. I make those trips, so I
have to have a vehicle that will do the job.

Or are you suggesting that I be forced to buy two cars, one for the few
local trips I make and one for the missions the first won't handle?

The average trip made by cars is short and typically round trip to
work, or in to see the kids play what ever sport. Car pooling could
take care of a lot this.

The average person's average trip, in a city, maybe. Ask someone living in a
small rural town what their average trip is.

This kind of fallacious generalization is why government regulation of what
people buy is simply wrong.

However for those that need the extra room and load capacity they
could still have it. I reiterate, FLEET AVERAGE does not mean every
car and tuck has to get that mileage. It's expected that all of them
averaged together would get that. Big difference.

That does nothing for those of us who aren't average. Driving up the fleet
average will require that the vehicles that will handle my mission be
unavailable, or else emasculated to the point they're unsafe.

This is the typical "all or nothing" argument against better mileage
or conservation. When it comes to the cars on the road, most of us
don't need a big pickup truck, monster SUV or 5,000# luxury car.

I don't either. My small SUV does the job.

However, I REFUSE to try to tell someone else what they need or don't need.
I cannot make that judgment for them. They can only do that for themselves.
The alternative is central planning, comrade.

Of course the LEDs are far preferable over CFLs, but they are currently
very expensive. Give 'em a couple years and they just might be on par with
today's CFL, but far more efficient and almost indefinite life with very
little heat given off and no starter required.

And if they do that, I'll happily switch. (Assuming they don't flicker
annoyingly when fed 60 Hz AC.)

That's the real key to doing the environmentally correct thing: Make it
economically justifiable, too. I don't mean artificially raising the cost
through taxation or anything like that. (The same arguments that justify
doing that in other circumstances can be used to justify raising the cost of
fuel for your Debonair to $10 a gallon. How much does it burn an hour?) I
mean make it save real money.

The greatest impact on safety would be getting the public to quit
accepting a yearly highway death toll of between 40 and 50,000 as
acceptable.

No argument from me on this one.

Maybe the biggest at present would be to build a jamming device to prevent
cell phones being used while the car is in motion and education.

Got a 2-meter rig in your car, OM? I do, and have had ever since I owned a
car. (Well, sometimes it was just 440, but you get the idea.) Just because
some people can't talk and drive doesn't mean everyone can't.

Today there seems to be an element in society that fights any change
to improve things.

When the suggested improvement is a drastic change in the way we live, and
where we live, and how we live, you bet your ass you're going to get
resistance, at least here in our free society. You see, the government isn't
supposed to treat us like the Chinese government treats its people, but
that's exactly what the enviro-wackos are calling for.

Nothing comes without some kind of cost including "business as usual"
which probably has the highest long term cost of any option.

That has yet to be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a lot of Americans.

If you're so keen on saving the planet, why haven't you junked your Debonair
and bought something smaller?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (getting ready to order)

Jay Maynard schrieb:
A hybrid SUV might be more fuel efficient than its conventional counterpart.

a hybrid is (besides the capability to produce a little bit of energy
while slowing down) only another way to transport energy. You still
(mainly) burn coal to heat water to produce electricity, then store it
in batteries. I doubt that the overall ecological calculation is in
favor of a (Honda) hybrid.

#m

Modern discourse is based upon the feminization of American society. We
don't argue the logic of global warming, we decide based upon how the
subject makes us feel. So we drive to the mall in our Expeditions to
protest Big Oil and the lack of wind turbines. Oh, wind turbines -- they
will interfere with our view when we go sailing. The turbines might kill
birds, and that makes us feel sad. Nuclear power is out because we don't
understand it and that little symbol makes us feel scared. No matter that
Ontario Hydro should really be called Ontario Nuclear, and the French -- the
French! -- derive the bulk of their electricty from nuclear power.

Hard, cold reason has all but disappeared as a controlling factor in
American life. As I see it, there is no practical replacement for oil.
Even if we stop burning it, we will still need it (or its cousin, natural
gas) for plastics, pharmaceuticals and everything else the petrochemical
industry provides us. We won't be able to stop burning oil for at least 3
or 4 decades.

To me, the global warming argument is entirely immaterial. We need to
reduce our carbon emissions not because we are making the earth warmer
(which we're not) but as a matter of national security. We must develop our
own oil as quickly and as thoroughly as possible, and at the same time
develop a replacement for burning oil for personal transportation. We must
reduce the insane outflow of our national wealth to the same people who have
sworn to kill us.

And I mean things that are real, not "switch to solar power" or "build
more wind mills" -- which are nice, warm-fuzzy things to do that
(unfortunately) have a negligible impact on our energy production needs.
No matter how much everyone wishes for it, we're not going to escape our
need for big-box power plants that run on fossil or nuclear fuels -- at
least not unless we're willing to largely dismantle modern society.

"LWG" wrote:

making the earth warmer (which we're not)

sigh

Sorry, I can't let that bald assertion pass.

Why do you believe that? Just because you want to, or do you have empirical
reasons?

but as a matter of national security. We must develop our own oil as
quickly and as thoroughly as possible, and at the same time develop a
replacement for burning oil for personal transportation. We must reduce the
insane outflow of our national wealth to the same people who have sworn to
kill us.

Absolutely. Our national security and economy will both continue to degrade
until we do something real about this.

On Mar 15, 3:55 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"LWG" wrote:
making the earth warmer (which we're not)

sigh

Sorry, I can't let that bald assertion pass.

Why do you believe that? Just because you want to, or do you have empirical
reasons?

but as a matter of national security. We must develop our own oil as
quickly and as thoroughly as possible, and at the same time develop a
replacement for burning oil for personal transportation. We must reduce the
insane outflow of our national wealth to the same people who have sworn to
kill us.

Absolutely. Our national security and economy will both continue to degrade
until we do something real about this.

Among the readily available answers is coal liquefaction for required
IC applications, nuclear power for the electric grid, and greater
efficiencies encouraged by market forces.

There are enough coal and oil shale reserves in the US alone to
provide internal demand needs for 150-500 years (depending on whose
data you apply and the expected consumption rate).

This coupled with Natural Gas reserves provides ample energy though
the next century, with existing technology and counting known
reserves.


Dan Mc