Re: Cheap Gas=Unnatural Capitalism - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

07-09-2003, 11:37 AM

> > >
> >
> > How odd, the country farthest north uses the most energy per person. I
> > hope they didn't spend too much on that study. I could have told them
> > that by looking at my oil bill I'm still paying from last winter. I
> > suppose if we start to paying fuel taxes as outrageuous as they do in
> > the UK that will by default create greater conservation. Right around
> > the time I can't afford to pay for that 3rd tank of oil in mid February
> > I'll start to conserve oil by dying of hypothermia.
>
> You might consider more insulation as well, and maybe a cross flow heat
> exchanger for ventilation control. If you live near any old flooded mine
> shafts they are very useful for geothermal heat pumps. One factory I
> recently read about cut it's costs for heating by about 70% by using heat
> pumps and a nearby mine.
>
>

Our nearby mines are filed with seawater so I doubt it, but the walls
are made of coal so...

I would be interested to know what percentage
of the population in Europe lives in stand alone houses in rural areas
compared to North America.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

07-11-2003, 07:44 AM

> >
> > Our nearby mines are filed with seawater so I doubt it, but the walls
> > are made of coal so...

I would be interested to know what percentage
> > of the population in Europe lives in stand alone houses in rural areas
> > compared to North America.
>
> The documentary was also of sea filled mines. The extensive depth of the
> mine works and the number of passages allowed warm water from deep levels to
> rise as heat was pumped out and the cooler water sank back down. It was a
> really good goethermal system for factories in an nearby industrial park
> whose major power costs was heating.
>

Well coal mines don't go that deep but if we had a diamond mine around
here that would be great. It would be nice to be sitting on hot springs
like in Iceland where they have so much free energy even heat the
sidewalks, but we don't.

--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

07-11-2003, 01:31 PM

> > > really good goethermal system for factories in an nearby industrial park
> > > whose major power costs was heating.
> > >
> >
> > Well coal mines don't go that deep
>
> I've just told you of an example that they go FAR ENOUGH. Open your ears. It
> is not steam power. It is warm water for heat pumps.
>

And I've just told you that no one if going to go diging mines for the
express purpose of doing this stuff while there's still oil to burn. I
don't read with my ears, by the way.

> > but if we had a diamond mine around
> > here that would be great. It would be nice to be sitting on hot springs
> > like in Iceland where they have so much free energy even heat the
> > sidewalks, but we don't.
>
> Stop dreaming of what you don't have and use what you HAVE.
>
> Here. Since you are so clueless I will provide a reference.
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> actory.pdf
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>

Umm, tell me exactly a company using free electricity to power heat
pumps in Springhill has to do with me here in Cape Breton? Find that
one on google for me will ya?

--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

07-12-2003, 07:12 AM

In article <Y8GPa.10181$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
>
> "Chris Phillipo" <cphillipo@ramsays-online.coim> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1978f6c0a62c9ded989ec3@news.eastlink.ca.. .
> > > > > really good goethermal system for factories in an nearby industrial
> park
> > > > > whose major power costs was heating.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well coal mines don't go that deep
> > >
> > > I've just told you of an example that they go FAR ENOUGH. Open your
> ears. It
> > > is not steam power. It is warm water for heat pumps.
> > >
> >
> > And I've just told you that no one if going to go diging mines for the
> > express purpose of doing this stuff while there's still oil to burn. I
> > don't read with my ears, by the way.
>
> [Chris]
> "Our nearby mines are filed with seawater so I doubt it, but the walls
> are made of coal so...

"
>
> Why would you dig mines when you have already claimed to have similar coal
> mines in your area.
>

The coal mines in our area are filled with 4 degree sea water, they are
open to the ocean, if you want to try and heat your home with that be my
guest. For that matter, try heating your home with 18 degree water when
the outside temperature is -25. Good luck there too. There's no free
lunch. Except, as I said, in Iceland.

--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

07-13-2003, 12:36 AM

"Chris Phillipo" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].. .
> In article <Y8GPa.10181$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
> >
> > "Chris Phillipo" <cphillipo@ramsays-online.coim> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1978f6c0a62c9ded989ec3@news.eastlink.ca.. .
> > > > > > really good goethermal system for factories in an nearby
industrial
> > park
> > > > > > whose major power costs was heating.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Well coal mines don't go that deep
> > > >
> > > > I've just told you of an example that they go FAR ENOUGH. Open your
> > ears. It
> > > > is not steam power. It is warm water for heat pumps.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And I've just told you that no one if going to go diging mines for the
> > > express purpose of doing this stuff while there's still oil to burn.
I
> > > don't read with my ears, by the way.
> >
> > [Chris]
> > "Our nearby mines are filed with seawater so I doubt it, but the walls
> > are made of coal so...

"
> >
> > Why would you dig mines when you have already claimed to have similar
coal
> > mines in your area.
> >
>
> The coal mines in our area are filled with 4 degree sea water, they are
> open to the ocean, if you want to try and heat your home with that be my
> guest. For that matter, try heating your home with 18 degree water when
> the outside temperature is -25. Good luck there too. There's no free
> lunch. Except, as I said, in Iceland.

Learn somehting about heat pumps. Learn something about your mines ( not the
surface layer )

If you do this and suddently realise what an ******* post you made, then
maybe we can talk sensibly.

Otherwise I will have to write you off as too dumb to understand the idea.

07-14-2003, 02:26 PM

"Don Quijote" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:d82348eb.0307141133.389e8e32@posting.google.c om...
> > > I made a somewhat spurious comment that auto exhaust, if as claimed
are
> > >so harmless that they be directed to the passenger compartment of
autos.
> > >And offered the ipinion that I find the act of emitting toxic
constiuents
> > >into the air in the form of automobile exhaust to be unacceptable
> >
> > Ok, you find it unacceptable. What does this *mean*?
> >
> > Do you simply find it unacceptable personally, and therefore never use
> > a car?
> >
> > Do you think that legislation should be passed outlawing the use of
> > automobiles for any reason?
> >
> > Or something in between?

Econmics is about cost/benefit ratios. The reason we need government is that
those cost/beenfit ratios can be skewed by dumping into a 'commons' of some
of the costs. We need an economics which retains the true cost/benefit ratio
by legislating the costs of pollution to those who would try to gain from
the distortions, i.e. the pollution source. Corporations, device, whatever.

>
> Something in between...
>
> Options is what we need, from bicycles to bullet trains...

Exactly. The way to maximize the economy and minimise the costs is to ensure
a wide range of options to suit the specifics of the situation. Bicycles may
be non-polluting but they are not always practical, etc.

>
> (recently posted as "What's the solution to Terrorism?"
>
> I'm at the same time pessimistic and optimist...
>
> The pessimism is that destruction may happen any time...
>
> The optimism is that a solution is really around the corner and it may
> come as either the enlightenment of our leaders (not all must be
> stupid, or sold out, are they?) or as a campaign of nonviolence.

Don't count on an enlightened leaders. Benevolent dictatorships are rare.
Only the people can demand good government as their right.

>
> Say, if we had an enlightened leader, he may think like this...
>
> (Source: World Press Review, letters)
>
> Yes, we need to fight a war, but no, the enemy is not Iraq... The
> enemy is oil with 65+ percent of the known oil reserves in the
> politically unstable, "Death to America"-chanting Middel East. Imagine
> the advances the United States could make to world stability and
> developing domestic employment opportunities if it spent the $79+
> billion Congress recently approved for Bush's Iraq war on alternative
> energy subsidies and investment. Might this be a better way to fight
> terrorism, support our troops, and regain world favor?

I doubt if Americans care much about regaining world favor. They enjoy being
the 'poor abused masters' and I think secretly revel in their newfound
pariah status.

The investments would probably exceed the 100B war but not the $350B
giveaway to the rich. Many of the investments, such as converting 30-35%
thermal efficiency coal plants to 50+% thermal efficiency plants would make
a HUGE difference and pay back in periods of less than a decade ( long
before the national debt is touched. ). Cogeneration and district heating
from power plant 'waste heat' would increase efficiency even more. Being
less polluting, they could offset the costs of scrubbing by selling the
'waste' heat productively and efficiently. All it takes are a few rational
people and a system that doesn't worship conflict but allows for
cooperation. The 'rugged individualist' rarely creates anything of lasting
beauty or utility. We developed societies because of their superiority to
the savage.

>
> Jay Lustgarten
> San Anselmo, California
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

07-17-2003, 07:23 AM

> So what would you say if a right-wing organization did the same
> for the true costs of riding bicycles? Trains get the same fuel
> economy as cars (and take it with the CBO if you disagree), and
> on a btu-per-passenger-mile basis, cars are better than transit
> buses. Only long-distance buses quite well.
>
> As for bicycles, you should pay for your own private roads
> with a $500 per year bicycle fee.

Unless you are a *misanthropist*, cars don't make sense (most of the
time)...

"The best option is to have options"

"The bottom line is this: investment in public transportation makes
dollars, and it makes sense. The benefits to motorists, to businesses,
to transit riders, and to American society as a whole far outweigh the
costs."

Something to Think About
The Economics of Public Transportation: Three Major Findings :

While transit is clearly a boon to the people who use it, even larger
benefits accrue to motorists, businesses, and society in general.
Given flexibility in how they develop their transportation investment
strategies, more and more areas — central cities, suburbs, and smaller
towns and villages — are choosing to make public transit an essential
component of their strategic transportation investment portfolio.
In those areas where such strategic investments in transit have been
made, ridership has grown, and the economic benefits to those
communities have risen accordingly. The market for transit is there,
but the Nation's transportation strategies must be geared to tap into
that market.

If you feel like you've been spending more time in traffic jams,
you've got lots of company. All across America, in big cities, in
suburbs, and in smaller towns, traffic is up, and congestion is up a
lot more. And it's going to get worse, since relatively small
increases in traffic can cause really huge increases in congestion.
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, in 50 metropolitan
areas the number of hours per capita that people spend delayed by
traffic congestion increased 95% from 1982 to 1993, 1 even though the
number of trips that people made increased by only 16.9%. 2 (see "How
Congestion Works" )

In Los Angeles, that amounted to an annual cost (again, per capita) of
$710. One might say, "Come on, that's Los Angeles, what did you
expect?" Well, it's also Houston ($680), Seattle ($720), Atlanta
($590), Boston ($520) and Miami ($560). If you live in Nashville, you
spent 2.2 times as many hours stuck in congestion in 1993 than you did
in 1982. In Kansas City and Sacramento, 2.85 times as many. In
Columbus, 2.34. And in Salt Lake City, the time you spent on the road
thinking unkind thoughts about your fellow motorist increased 320%.

Now, hold that thought for a moment, and focus on this: for every
dollar the American taxpayer spends on supporting the Nation's public
transportationa systems, the economic return on that investment is at
least four or five to one, and probably substantially more. And here's
the kicker : the people who benefit the most are motorists and society
in general! This perhaps surprising result is developed in Section 3
of this Report, and is summarized in Table 3 .

"Wait a minute," you say, "I drive, what's public transit got to do
with me?" Glad you asked. Try to imagine....

Another 5 million cars and 27,000 new lane miles of roads jammed into
America's cities;
Almost 200,000 more fatalities, injuries and accidents every year on
the Nation's roads, at a cost in the billions of dollars;
Another four lanes (or maybe a second deck) on your local freeway, at
untold fiscal, environmental and aesthetic cost. Table 1 shows, for 90
urbanized areas, just how many cars and new miles of freeway would be
needed to replace public transit;
Americans spending another 367 million hours each year sitting in
traffic jams, at a cost to them and to the economy of more than $19
billion.
Not very pleasant to contemplate. Today, the situation on our Nation's
freeways and roads can be pretty bad. But it would be a whole lot
worse without public transportation. Table 1 ("Transit Relieves
Traffic Congestion") shows what would happen to America's metropolitan
networks of freeways, highway and roads if they had to accommodate the
millions of people who ride on public transportation. The same Table
provides dramatic evidence of how many America's metropolitan areas —
69 out of 90 shown — are choosing rail transit as an essential part of
their multi-modal transportation investment strategies.

"Anything that encourages people not to drive their cars into urban
areas is good for the environment and good for the health of cities. A
dense mass-transit network should be one of southern New England's
selling points. And in particular, anything that links the Providence
and Fall River/New Bedford areas with Boston and its high-technology
nexus bodes well for economic development in southeastern New
England."

Editorial
The Providence Journal-Bulletin
July 25, 1995

And yet, in statehouses and city halls across the land, and even in
Congress, we can still hear the "transit vs. highways" debate that has
raged for more than 40 years. This report argues that we need to set
emotions aside and look at the numbers. When we do, the economic case
for public transportation, the "dollars and sense" of the issue, is
undeniable.

Why We All Care So Much
Ever notice how emotional a lot of discussions about transportation
can get? Ever wonder why? After all, the transportation system is just
another part of daily life, just like the electric utility, water,
phone and postal systems. But electricity, water, phone calls and mail
generally just "show up" at our homes and businesses. Transportation,
on the other hand, is something that we all spend an awful lot of our
time doing, and the experience is all too often time consuming,
expensive, and irritating — if not downright painful.

Like it or not, we spend hundreds of hours per year just getting to
work and around town. That's more time than we spend on vacation and a
lot of other things that make life worth living. An occasional power
failure we can live with, but a transportation system that's
overloaded is a continuing irritant: it's negative effects are up
close and personal, and they won't go away!

And here's another thing: few of us claim to be experts about public
utilities or the postal system, but we're all "transportation" experts
by virtue of the fact that we spend so much time at it. So when
transportation "solutions" are discussed, we've all got a big personal
stake in the subject, plus our "expert" egos are on the line. Small
wonder that much of the public debate on transportation issues rarely
differs from arguments about the subject down at the local tavern.

People are right to care so much about transportation, for it
profoundly impacts the life of every single American. But as Congress
debates the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (the "ISTEA"), b it might be helpful to tone down the
rhetoric and take a look at the facts.

Beyond Rhetoric
A sometimes heated "transit vs. highways" debate has raged ever since
the interstate system was a twinkle in President Eisenhower's eye.
Ever since the passage of the Urban Mass Transportation Act in 1964,
critics of public transportation in America have tended to dismiss
transit's significance compared to the nation's systems of
Interstates, freeways, and roads. Not infrequently, public transit has
been dismissed as little more than a highly subsidized social welfare
program designed primarily to serve the poor, the elderly, and the
physically disabled. Dismissing transit as being marginal to the "real
business" of transportation, the allegation is that highways are about
economic development and jobs, transit is about welfare.

On the other side of the debate, transit's supporters have tended to
demonize the highway system — and sometimes highway engineers and
builders — contending that they have destroyed the very fabric of
America's metropolitan areas, caused suburban and ex-urban sprawl,
polluted the atmosphere, made the country dangerously dependent on
foreign oil, and generally reduced the quality of life for many, if
not most, Americans. In this view, cars and highways are THE ENEMY of
both people and communities, and transit is THE ANSWER to a better
life for all Americans.

Whatever the merits on each side of this ideological chasm, the
resulting rhetorical excesses have often generated more heat than
light, doing little to enhance the subtance or conduct of the public
discourse — whether in Congress or in the Nation's statehouses and
city halls — about what mix of transportation investments can best
meet Americans' mobility needs in the 21st century.

"The efficient movement of goods and people is a crucial factor in
ensuring our domestic and international competitiveness:
transportation now accounts for 17% of gross domestic product. Having
a variety of transportation methods available increases access to both
new labor markets and cost-effective goods shipment. Transportation
efficiency can be achieved through a national transportation plan that
includes all modes of transport."

Business for Efficient Transportation
Washington, D.C.

One issue that seems especially muddled relates to the economic return
on the American taxpayer's investment in the transportation arena. For
better or worse, cars and trucks are just about everywhere, and most
people intuitively understand that America's economy depends on the
efficient and safe transport of people and goods on the country's
nearly 4 million miles of Interstate highways, urban freeways, and
local streets and roads. But what most people don't know is that the
Nation's public transit systems play an essential part in making the
overall transportation system work.

This report tries to get beyond the rhetoric to look at the facts. The
results may be surprising to some:

In metropolitan cities and suburbs, and in rural towns and villages,
the Nation's subways, light rail lines, commuter rail systems, AMTRAK,
and bus and paratransit systems are giving the taxpayers more than
their money's worth. While transit is clearly a boon to the people who
use it, even larger benefits accrue to motorists, businesses, and
society in general. Transit makes the road system work better; and
transit plays a key role in helping America to be more competitive in
the global marketplace, in making more Americans more productive, in
creating jobs, and in making our cities, suburbs and towns better
places to work and do business.
In the past few years, state and local decision-makers have had
unprecedented flexibility to develop transportation investment
strategies, and public-private partnerships have sprung up in hundreds
of places to bring a more businesslike, no-nonsense approach to
finding transportation solutions. The outcome is that more and more
areas — central cities, suburbs, and smaller towns and villages — are
choosing to make public transit an essential component of their
strategic transportation investment portfolio.
Businesses that make strategic investments needed to offer quality
products and services to the marketplace will tend to prosper; those
that don't will lose market share and fail. Public transit is no
different: in those areas where such investments have been made,
ridership has grown, and the economic benefits to those communities
have risen accordingly. In other areas, where systems and services
have been allowed to deteriorate, transit use has declined. The market
for transit is there, but the Nation's transportation strategies must
be geared to tap into that market.
It's In the Mix
"We have come to the stark realization that a balanced working
transportation solution must be multi-modal. In short, we need to
dramatically expand our local and express bus operations and build a
modern light rail system to complete our transportation network."

Honorable Peggy Bilsten
Vice Mayor
Phoenix, Arizona

The above referenced "mix" of transportation investments is key: it
reflects a new way of thinking about transportation strategies that
has started to take root since, and to no small degree because of, the
passage of the Intermodal Transportation Systems Efficiency Act of
1991, commonly known as the ISTEA. The ISTEA emphasizes a "systems
approach" to transportation policy and investment (more about that in
a minute), with increased emphasis on the functionality and outcomes
of different transportation strategies. This approach recognizes that
the transportation system has a lot to do in getting people to work
and goods to market, and in providing access to shopping, social,
cultural and recreational opportunities for every American. And it
knows that the various "modes" of transportation (e.g. highways and
roads, rail and bus transit, freight railroads, etc.) all have a part
to play, and that they are all part of the bigger system.

"System" is one of those words that engineers (and sometimes marketing
types) use to impress us ordinary folk, but what does it mean in a
transportation setting? It may help to think of an electronic circuit
which has a bunch of different components: transistors, resistors,
capacitors, inductors, and other widgets that make up the circuit. No
one would argue that one type of component is somehow more important
than the others. Take out any one of them and the circuit won't work
as well, and may not work at all.

"The city of Phoenix and the surrounding communities continue to
experience phenomenal growth in population and economic development
opportunities. We believe that mass transit, as a major component of a
balanced transportation system, is essential to meet these
challenges."

Valerie Manning, President and CEO
Phoenix Chamber of Commerce

It's the same with transportation. Whether we realize it or not, it
all works together like an electronic circuit, and the "components" of
the circuit are the modes: you can't change one part without changing
it all.

Without its transit "component," the overall transportation system
starts to break down. As we'll see, transit is essential in the
transportation mix for America. As we'll also see, it pays a handsome
return on investment to the taxpayer, to the business community, to
the transit user, and even to the motorist who never uses transit.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

07-17-2003, 01:10 PM

"Scott" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:b41df48c.0307170936.17a757a6@posting.google.c om...
> <MASSIVE SNIP!!!>
>
> Don: That post rocks. Why can't our governors, congress people,
> presidents get this stuff?

No lobbyists to hand feed them the script. No big profits to be made from
rationalising traffic. As P.T. used to say there is a sucker born every
minute and NOT being a sucker takes unpaid work Corporate profits have never
been increased by telling the suckers what the scam is.

07-18-2003, 10:30 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Martin K.) wrote in message news:<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>...
> On 17 Jul 2003 10:36:49 -0700, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Scott) wrote:
>
> >Don: That post rocks. Why can't our governors, congress people,
> >presidents get this stuff?
>
> I agree. Very impressive. Has it been published somewhere?

Everywhere, actually I don't know why they keep ignoring it...

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]