Re: Article: Every New Car Will Be A Hybrid By 2020

Larry G wrote:
On Aug 17, 10:41 am, Rich Piehl
<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Larry G wrote:
On Aug 17, 1:42 am, "Jack May" <jack....@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Floyd Rogers" <fbloogy...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:reqdnSXNi7K5sjrVnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Jack May" <jack....@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
"Larry G" <gross.la...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote On Aug 16, 1:52 am, "Jack May"
<jack....@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Scott in SoCal" <scottenazt...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
Larry G <gross.la...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This statement is a logical fallacy (Gambler's dilemma?) Just because
no oil spills from platforms have happened recently does not mean that
they can't happen in the future. Statistics tells us that's simply not
true.
Sure it can happen again, but the chances are far less than before.
Perfect assurance is impossible. What is almost assured is that the supply
of oil in the world will not be able to supply the increases in growth of
oil use around 2015 according to a leading energy expert on the Bob Brinker
radio program today. He seems to know what he is talking about.
So somewhere between 2015 and 2020 we will start seeing the rapid rise of
oil prices way beyond what we just saw. We will then start seeing the
collapse of the economics of many countries. If a lot people have plug in
hybrids by then, we might have something resembling a stable economy for a
while. We still need to get off of oil.
The best chance of doing that seems to be switching to CNG for new cars and
incentives for conversion of other cars. There has been a major surge in
natural gas production because of improved technology to fracture the rock
and keep the fractures open with sand blown into the cracks. We need to
transition from natural gas used to produce electricity because CNG is too
important for transportation use.
Probably emphasize nuclear with reprocessing of fuel rods and a small number
of designs (3?) that are repeated over and over again. Emphasis would be
rapid construction (2-3 yrs?) with detailed analysis of each plant greatly
reduced with common design like in other countries.
One more thing (another sub-thread?) The tips of the blades of modern
windmills travel at speeds up to around 120 mph. No cladding on them
will prevent birds from being killed by them. Even water is hard at
some speeds. ;->
As I point out above, we are going into a critical live or die situation for
the economy. Fixing the bird problem is a much lower priority than making
sure the economy does not self destruct. Survivable must be first with
other problems fixed later when stability looks like it is happening.
if cars ARE going to have electric motors - then why is gasoline the
only fuel that can be used?
re: turbines and birds - until I see some real data especially
compared to bird kills from other things - like cars and high tension
lines, etc.. then this is little more than scare tactics without good
data... to back it up...
This is far from "data" I understand, Larry. But I present it to make a
point.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-04-windmills-usat_x.htm

The point being that there is an element of environmentalists that
believe that somehow our civilization should be able to exist on this
earth without disrupting other species. I seriously doubt that's
possible - we've always disrupted other species even back to the stone
age. But that doesn't seem to matter to them. The want to take
measures, often to extreme or excess, to try to prevent civilization
from doing what it needs to do to function.

Now, am I saying we just trash the environment for our own greed and
self worth? Absolutely not. But when avenue after avenue of solution
is obstructed because of "environmental" concerns it becomes becomes a
little difficult to see that environmental concern as much more than
just obstruction for obstruction sake.

Take care,
Rich

God bless the USA

--
Pat Paulsen (1927-1997) for President - 2008

Even though he's dead it makes about much sense
to vote for him as it does for the choices
that we have who are living. At least he's not
going change his position on anything.

First thing you need to recognize is that "environmentalists" is not a
single lock-step monolith.....

there are indeed some folks who take such a pure approach that it's
comical but then again so are the actual numbers of this kind of
greenie as compared to the much larger group.. .. just as there are
some really far right right-wingers...

second.. on your article - year = 2005 ....

it would be my opinion that if this claim was/is true that there would
be widesread opposition to wind turbines from groups like the Audubon
society and instead they are supportive:

http://www.audubon.org/campaign/windPowerQA.html

which brings up my third point - which is many folks think that
environmentalists are a lock-step monolithic group which represents a
very narrow approach to the environment and those folks who think this
- demonstrate their lack of knowledge about the larger environmental
community and it's various positions on the environment.

for the record also - the mercury emitted by most coal plants is far
more pervasive and harmful to a much wider array of animal life -
including humans than wind turbines every will be....

when we have to be vigilant about what kind of fish we give to our
kids for fear of them being harmed by mercury contamination ... and we
have a choice between further ...more widespread mercury contamination
(which will result if we start using mostly hybrid cars).. we need to
better understand the tradeoffs with wind turbines.

It's not that wind turbines kill birds per se.. as nature will replace
those birds just as if they were/are killed by predators ... power
lines and autos...

the issue is.. are the turbines killing endangered species such that
it will result in the destruction of those species...

if that is a real concern...then just like any other threat to
endangered species - we need the facts... equating killing birds
automatically to killing endangered species is not a way to get at the
facts IMHO.


As for the year on the article it just happened to be one I found quickly on a google search. I don't even want to attempt to represent it as current. I wanted to us it to show all the different issues that are all conflicting with the need to power the country by means other than coal or oil.

I understand that there is not entirely a monolithic entity of environmentalism. And actually that is one of the problems. Each small environmental organization has their own cause that they believe must be addressed in the overall scheme of things. By themselves each one is not insurmountable. But cumulatively they create quite an obstacle. But how do you allow for one without allowing for the others? What gives one more weight than the others? Some are valid, and some may tend towards the silly. But each one is just as real to it champions. But at some point concessions have to be made to further the greater societal good.

Also, in the article were issues of aesthetics from the folks of Cape Cod. I have a problem with that, but I'm not sure how it differs from people who don't want a refinery in their back yard, except that there's no danger of explosion from a wind farm.

Take care,
Rich

God bless the USA
--
Pat Paulsen (1927-1997) for President - 2008

Even though he's dead it makes about much sense
to vote for him as it does for the choices
that we have who are living. At least he's not
going change his position on anything.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Article: Every New Car Will Be A Hybrid By 2020
    ... of oil in the world will not be able to supply the increases in growth of ... First thing you need to recognize is that "environmentalists" is not a ... including humans than wind turbines every will be.... ... It's not that wind turbines kill birds per se.. ...
    (misc.transport.road)
  • Et tu, W. Azal (was: FUCK YOU PAT KKKHOLI)
    ... You cosy up with the likes of Chevron ... I don't take money from the oil companies or Estee ... the Curious Career of Maurice Strong ... U.N. Environment Program in Nairobi. ...
    (talk.religion.bahai)
  • Re: $3.249 Gal. For #2 Home Heating Oil
    ... the record of drilling without ... signifiicant harm to the environment over the last several decades is ... Many of the oil platforms were completely destroyed, ... gas or diesel fuel is released, it's considered a toxic spill. ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • FUCK YOU PAT KKKHOLI
    ... You cosy up with the likes of Chevron ... “Pits the size of football fields filled with a choking sludge of oil ... the Curious Career of Maurice Strong ... U.N. Environment Program in Nairobi. ...
    (talk.religion.bahai)
  • The kind of people the Bahais, Paul Hammond and the Tahirih Justice Cent. Board like: ChevronTexaco,
    ... Makes it much harder to criticise, ... You cosy up with the likes of Chevron ... “Pits the size of football fields filled with a choking sludge of oil ... U.N. Environment Program in Nairobi. ...
    (talk.religion.bahai)