Jim Yanik wrote:

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
:


From my view, governments /should/ be forcing (yes, forcing) people to
do what's necessary to save energy. Market forces are highly effective
in making short-term changes; they are much less effective in
effecting proper long-term changes. (Things usually get worse until
they abruptly collapse.) The problem, of course, is making sure the
forced changes are rational and occur in the correct order.


if that's what you want,then MOVE to somewhere that does that sort of
stuff. don't try to enact it here in the US. We value our freedom.

Freedom?
Last time I heard, that was coming up short!

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
4...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
:

From my view, governments /should/ be forcing (yes, forcing) people
to do what's necessary to save energy. Market forces are highly
effective in making short-term changes; they are much less effective
in effecting proper long-term changes. (Things usually get worse until
they abruptly collapse.) The problem, of course, is making sure the
forced changes are rational and occur in the correct order.

if that's what you want,then MOVE to somewhere that does that sort
of stuff. don't try to enact it here in the US. We value our freedom.

Yeah, our freedom to ruin everything without regard for the consequences.

Think about what would have happened if the US government had, after WW II,
FORCED auto makers to gradually improve fuel mileage at a "reasonable" rate.
The world would almost certainly be quite different.

if that's what you want,then MOVE to somewhere that does that sort of
stuff. don't try to enact it here in the US. We value our freedom.

Freedom is important -- critical, vital -- with respect to what we think,
which people we associate with, which books we read, which church we attend,
whom we have sex with, etc.

It is of less than zero importance with respect to the cars we drive or the
lamps we illuminate our houses with. The economic stability of this country
is far more important. Those who scream "FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!" are the
ones doing the most to destroy this country's economic vitality.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
if that's what you want,then MOVE to somewhere that does that sort of
stuff. don't try to enact it here in the US. We value our freedom.


Freedom is important -- critical, vital -- with respect to what we think,
which people we associate with, which books we read, which church we attend,
whom we have sex with, etc.

It is of less than zero importance with respect to the cars we drive or the
lamps we illuminate our houses with. The economic stability of this country
is far more important. Those who scream "FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!" are the
ones doing the most to destroy this country's economic vitality.


That's all well and fine how ever, after seeing who is running the show
these days, do you really think we would be in good hands if we gave up
those freedoms?

Think about it, you are sounding like those that want 100% control
over you and you're willing to give it.. Has it ever occurred to you
that our leadership is using that as an excuse for them screwing up
so bad?

They know the time they have left in office or at least one or
two of them, its a good cover up for they're problems.. Just like
blaming BUSH and all the prior leaders before him .. THat does not sit
right with me. Most of us do not want to hear the past, we want to make
it go away. Using the past as an excuse for not getting equality for
man kind sounds more like Bible thumping.. And you should know that
politics and religion do not mix!

Nothing gets done with bible thumpers other than pointing the finger
at the other guy for all their problems. They seem to thieve on it. And
with out elaborating on that, I'm sure you know what I am referring too.

Come on now, do you want to be the first to give up your freedoms to
our leaders? Especially those that are in power at the moment?

I will admit that something's we do have, made it a little easier than
it should be to gain access to funds that are diverted where they
should not be. Who is the blame for that? our freedoms? I don't think
so.

Remember, its not just a little, it's all or nothing! I don't
really think you are prepare to just turn over and die!

If we didn't have any FREEDOM thumpers. You'd be in a world of ****
and long time ago...

The first thing that needs to be done is to remove those off the
program that don't belong on it, especially those that are not even
legal to start with! You talk about FREEDOMS, its those people that are
doing the most damage by threatening our FREEDOMS. Because they
are using up all the resources our country created for those that are
legally born here and worked for it.. If you do the math, one of our
greatest problems is those on the system illegally..

Next on the list is to get the peoples hands out of each others
pockets. That includes all the entitlements and pay outs from
big business.. This all comes to a bottleneck at some point and the
bottle has broken!

No, Its not our FREEDOMS that are the problems, its those governing
them and don't want us to have them because they don't know how to
manage it and keep their nose out of area's where they don't belong with
out them or their buddies getting a cut some where.. Most of those guys
are there for the wrong reasons, not the reasons we put them there for.


And don't forget that.

Freedom is important -- critical, vital -- with respect to what we think,
which people we associate with, which books we read, which church
we attend, whom we have sex with, etc.

It is of less than zero importance with respect to the cars we drive or
the
lamps we illuminate our houses with. The economic stability of this
country
is far more important. Those who scream "FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!"
are the ones doing the most to destroy this country's economic
vitality.

Think about it, you are sounding like those that want 100% control
over you and you're willing to give it.. Has it ever occurred to you
that our leadership is using that as an excuse for them screwing up
so bad?

Uh... you obviously didn't read what I wrote.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
when Simon Morley returns to the 20th century from the 19th with his
girlfriend Julia Charbonneau, she loves the brightness and clarity of
incandescent lamps, but he says he prefers gas light.

Both are pretty continuous spectrum light sources. The problem with both
CFL and LED is they ain't - they have troughs and spikes. Which is what
makes them unpleasant to many, IMHO.

--
*It's not hard to meet expenses... they're everywhere.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.


Seconded. Nail on head and all that. As I have said before, they are a
substitute not a replacement technology, at this point in their development.

Arfa

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
if that's what you want,then MOVE to somewhere that does that sort of
stuff. don't try to enact it here in the US. We value our freedom.

Freedom is important -- critical, vital -- with respect to what we think,
which people we associate with, which books we read, which church we
attend,
whom we have sex with, etc.

It is of less than zero importance with respect to the cars we drive or
the
lamps we illuminate our houses with. The economic stability of this
country
is far more important. Those who scream "FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!" are
the
ones doing the most to destroy this country's economic vitality.



But it is not of "less than zero importance". We are talking of a principle
here, and you can't have a principle that's valid for one set of ideas, and
not for a different set that don't suit your particular views. A principle
must be valid right across the board, otherwise, it's not one ...

You can disagree with some aspects of the way a principle is applied to
life, but you can't invalidate it for those conditions, just because of that
disagreement.

Arfa

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
4...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
:

From my view, governments /should/ be forcing (yes, forcing) people
to do what's necessary to save energy. Market forces are highly
effective in making short-term changes; they are much less effective
in effecting proper long-term changes. (Things usually get worse
until they abruptly collapse.) The problem, of course, is making
sure the forced changes are rational and occur in the correct order.

if that's what you want,then MOVE to somewhere that does that sort
of stuff. don't try to enact it here in the US. We value our freedom.

Yeah, our freedom to ruin everything without regard for the
consequences.

Think about what would have happened if the US government had, after
WW II, FORCED auto makers to gradually improve fuel mileage at a
"reasonable" rate. The world would almost certainly be quite
different.




are you familiar with CAFE? Corporate Average Fuel Economy law,that
manadates higher MPG for passenger vehicles?

the one that was responsible for more people buying TRUCKS AND SUVs with
far worse fuel economy,and for clogging our roads with even bigger
landbarges.

That was government's way of forcing better mileage. It didn't work very
well.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
:

if that's what you want,then MOVE to somewhere that does that sort of
stuff. don't try to enact it here in the US. We value our freedom.

Freedom is important -- critical, vital -- with respect to what we
think, which people we associate with, which books we read, which
church we attend, whom we have sex with, etc.

It is of less than zero importance with respect to the cars we drive
or the lamps we illuminate our houses with. The economic stability of
this country is far more important. Those who scream "FREEDOM!
FREEDOM! FREEDOM!" are the ones doing the most to destroy this
country's economic vitality.




I disagee.
the ability to move freely about our nation is very important,and private
autos are one of the big successes of our nation.
They are very vital to our economic stability,vitality,and prosperity.

And government is not the best for determining what is best for
people.Their track record in that respect is atrocious.
FYI,government has NO BUSINESS determining what sort of lamps we must
use,or how efficient our autos must be.
there's no power for that given to them in our Constitution.

to repeat;
if you want to force people to do what you think is best for them,then move
somewhere else. Please.We dont need any communists here.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
:

Freedom is important -- critical, vital -- with respect to what we
think, which people we associate with, which books we read, which
church we attend, whom we have sex with, etc.

It is of less than zero importance with respect to the cars we drive
or
the
lamps we illuminate our houses with. The economic stability of this
country
is far more important. Those who scream "FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!"
are the ones doing the most to destroy this country's economic
vitality.

Think about it, you are sounding like those that want 100% control
over you and you're willing to give it.. Has it ever occurred to you
that our leadership is using that as an excuse for them screwing up
so bad?

Uh... you obviously didn't read what I wrote.




you wrote a bunch of nonsense.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
4...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
:

if that's what you want,then MOVE to somewhere that does that sort of
stuff. don't try to enact it here in the US. We value our freedom.

Freedom is important -- critical, vital -- with respect to what we
think, which people we associate with, which books we read, which
church we attend, whom we have sex with, etc.

It is of less than zero importance with respect to the cars we drive
or the lamps we illuminate our houses with. The economic stability of
this country is far more important. Those who scream "FREEDOM!
FREEDOM! FREEDOM!" are the ones doing the most to destroy this
country's economic vitality.

I disagee.
the ability to move freely about our nation is very important,
and private autos are one of the big successes of our nation.
They are very vital to our economic stability,vitality,and prosperity.

WHERE DID I EVER SAY PRIVATE CARS ARE A BAD THING, OR SHOULD BE OUTLAWED?
WHERE, WHERE, WHERE? SHOW ME.

Do you deliberately distort EVERYTHING YOU READ to fit your conservative
Weltanschauung?

The CAFE largely flopped, because it overlooked the fact that Americans have
traditionally loved big cars, and CAFE did nothing to FORCE people to buy
smaller cars.


And government is not the best for determining what is best
for people.Their track record in that respect is atrocious.

I know, I know... Let's get rid of the Food & Drug administration, so that
people won't be forced to purchase products that might be dangerous to their
health. And let's get rid of the Federal Safety Commission. After all, the
best way to find out if your child might strangle itself in a crib is to
give the child a chance and see what happens.

One of the purposes of government IS to regulate human behavior. But of
course, sending someone to prison when they commit murder is such a
/terrible/ restraint on personal freedom, is it not?


FYI,government has NO BUSINESS determining what sort of
lamps we must use,or how efficient our autos must be.
there's no power for that given to them in our Constitution.

FYI, there is. It's the Interstate Commerce clause, which gives the Federal
government pretty much carte blanche in such matters. (This is typical.
Conservatives generally have no idea of what the Constitution or Bill of
Rights /actually/ say.)

You know, during WW II there was rationing. People got coupon books that
controlled how much of particular types of food they could buy, how many
pairs of shoes and sets of auto tires they could purchase. This was
necessary to make sure our soldiers had the weapons and supplies they
needed. DO YOU OBJECT?

We are at war with countries who control a substantial percentage of our
energy supply, and have been involved in this war since the end of WW II.
What would you have us do about this? Wait until energy becomes so expensive
that people are forced to use less -- and American industry is further
damaged by high energy costs -- or FORCE people to use less NOW?

When this country is reduced to third-world economic status, enjoy your
precious "freedom" to choose the light bulb you want.

-----------------------

Just to clarify a point... The government should force people to use
more-efficient lighting, whether or not they like it -- the forcing or the
bulbs themselves.

It would be easy enough -- and an excellent idea -- for the government to
prohibit the manufacture & import of conventional Edison-based tungsten
lamps after, say, 2015. There are good CFL replacements for them /right
now/.

However... there are no satisfactory replacements for decorative lamps
(especially the smaller ones), nor would it make sense to use a CFL in a
refrigerator (or in any application where the light is turned on only
briefly). Except for chandeliers, there might be little point in replacing
such lamps with more-efficient versions, as they don't consume anywhere
nearly as much electricity as general lighting does.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 07:50:29 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

are you familiar with CAFE? Corporate Average Fuel Economy law,that
manadates higher MPG for passenger vehicles?

the one that was responsible for more people buying TRUCKS AND SUVs with
far worse fuel economy,and for clogging our roads with even bigger
landbarges.

That was government's way of forcing better mileage. It didn't work very
well.

CAFE is a problem, but that wasn't the original reason for consumers
to buy over SUV/truck monsters. It was the "gas guzzler tax" of 1978.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Tax_Act#Gas_guzzler_tax
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/guzzler/
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/guzzler/420f06042.htm
The buyer of a new vehicle pays $1,000 to $7,700 in taxes to the feds
if it doesn't get at least 22 mpg. However, if the vehicle is over
6000 lbs GVW, it's exempt as a light truck and no taxes are charged.

For a 6000 lb GVW behemoth SUV, that should pay the $7,700 tax, at
$3/gallon, that's 2000 gallons of gas. With a 12 mpg typical gas
mileage for a big SUV, that's 72,000 miles. The average driver burns
12,000 to 20,000 miles per year. Not paying this tax would therefore
pay for all the gasoline consumed in the first 3.5 to 7.0 years of
operation. Since this tax generates considerable revenue, the feds
wouldn't even think of fixing the counter incentive problem.

It's quite a sales pitch:
Buy this new oversized gas guzzler, and the money you save
will pay for the first 3.5 to 7.0 years of driving.

What I usually find on the sticker is a 6004 lb GVW. Yet, when the
vehicle is actually weighed empty (curb weight), it usually measures
considerably less. I have no idea how the GVW is actually calculated,
but I suspect there's a bit of creative number juggling happening in
order to get the weight up to over 6000 lbs. GVW includes payload,
passengers, and all options. They probably crammed a half dozen
aspiring Sumo wrestlers into the vehicle as passengers, while filling
the trunk with lead bricks until the springs almost flattened.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
4...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
:

if that's what you want,then MOVE to somewhere that does that sort
of stuff. don't try to enact it here in the US. We value our
freedom.

Freedom is important -- critical, vital -- with respect to what we
think, which people we associate with, which books we read, which
church we attend, whom we have sex with, etc.

It is of less than zero importance with respect to the cars we drive
or the lamps we illuminate our houses with. The economic stability
of this country is far more important. Those who scream "FREEDOM!
FREEDOM! FREEDOM!" are the ones doing the most to destroy this
country's economic vitality.

I disagee.
the ability to move freely about our nation is very important,
and private autos are one of the big successes of our nation.
They are very vital to our economic stability,vitality,and
prosperity.

WHERE DID I EVER SAY PRIVATE CARS ARE A BAD THING, OR SHOULD BE
OUTLAWED? WHERE, WHERE, WHERE? SHOW ME.

show me where I said that you said any of that.

Do you deliberately distort EVERYTHING YOU READ to fit your
conservative Weltanschauung?

why do you ASSume things that have not been said?

The CAFE largely flopped, because it overlooked the fact that
Americans have traditionally loved big cars, and CAFE did nothing to
FORCE people to buy smaller cars.


And government is not the best for determining what is best
for people.Their track record in that respect is atrocious.

I know, I know... Let's get rid of the Food & Drug administration, so
that people won't be forced to purchase products that might be
dangerous to their health. And let's get rid of the Federal Safety
Commission. After all, the best way to find out if your child might
strangle itself in a crib is to give the child a chance and see what
happens.

that Safety Commission is one more thing(of many) Federal government should
NOT be involved with. If people want those services,companies will spring
up to provide them,like Consumer Reports.


One of the purposes of government IS to regulate human behavior. But
of course, sending someone to prison when they commit murder is such a
/terrible/ restraint on personal freedom, is it not?


FYI,government has NO BUSINESS determining what sort of
lamps we must use,or how efficient our autos must be.
there's no power for that given to them in our Constitution.

FYI, there is. It's the Interstate Commerce clause, which gives the
Federal government pretty much carte blanche in such matters. (This is
typical. Conservatives generally have no idea of what the Constitution
or Bill of Rights /actually/ say.)

Bull****.
regulating TRADE between the states has nothing to do with auto fuel
economy. that Interstate Commerce clause has been abused almost as much as
the "provide for the general welfare" comment on the Preamble.

You know, during WW II there was rationing. People got coupon books
that controlled how much of particular types of food they could buy,
how many pairs of shoes and sets of auto tires they could purchase.
This was necessary to make sure our soldiers had the weapons and
supplies they needed. DO YOU OBJECT?

There was a WAR being fought. there's provision for that,it makes
sense,and it was for a limited time.

We are at war with countries who control a substantial percentage of
our energy supply, and have been involved in this war since the end of
WW II. What would you have us do about this?

DEVELOP OUR OWN ENERGY SOURCES. Instead of blocking them off.

Wait until energy becomes
so expensive that people are forced to use less -- and American
industry is further damaged by high energy costs -- or FORCE people to
use less NOW?

When this country is reduced to third-world economic status, enjoy
your precious "freedom" to choose the light bulb you want.

Our nation is being "reduced to third-world status" by people like you,who
have government interfere in everything. Our status began dropping when we
began accepting socialism.



-----------------------

Just to clarify a point... The government should force people to use
more-efficient lighting, whether or not they like it -- the forcing or
the bulbs themselves.

I disagree. the Federal government has NO BUSINESS in this area.


It would be easy enough -- and an excellent idea -- for the government
to prohibit the manufacture & import of conventional Edison-based
tungsten lamps after, say, 2015. There are good CFL replacements for
them /right now/.

However... there are no satisfactory replacements for decorative lamps
(especially the smaller ones), nor would it make sense to use a CFL in
a refrigerator (or in any application where the light is turned on
only briefly). Except for chandeliers, there might be little point in
replacing such lamps with more-efficient versions, as they don't
consume anywhere nearly as much electricity as general lighting does.

Yeah,force people to change instead of building more nuclear power plants
and having cheap reliable electricity.

You need to move to commie-land.
Then you can force people to do as you want them to do.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Arfa Daily wrote:
Remember my post a few weeks back "Another Reason to Hate CFLs" ? Well,
here's yet another. That one that I put in my bench light, that started
it all, has now become so dim, that it is worse than useless. It has
been getting worse and worse over the last week. There are signs of the
ballast enclosure running hot, so I guess that any electros in there,
have just cooked dry, due to the fact that it is predominantly hanging
down, in a semi-enclosed 'shade', much like a lot of household room and
decorative lighting does. They are fundamentally a crap technology that
has been forced on a largely unwanting public, by supposedly green
issues with a dubious foundation in fact.

I know a lot of people on here seem to like the dreadful things, and
swear by them, but my continuing experience, judged from when they first
appeared, right up until now, just makes me want to swear *at* them ...

I have now found an internet site selling all varieties of
incandescents, including 60 watt pearl, so I shall be stocking up post
haste. I have also just started trying out the halogen versions of
traditional light bulbs, which still seem to make it into the eco-bollox
"book of energy savers", even though they only consume a few watts less
than their equivalent light-output 'traditional' tungsten cousins. Thus
far, I am impressed. I now have a 70 watt actual, 100 watt equivalent,
fitted to my hallway main light fixture. It is very bright, very easy
(for me anyway) to see by, and has a good colour spectrum, not in the
slightest way offensive to my eyes, unlike the CFLs, which no matter how
much anyone says that *they* can't tell the difference with, *I* can ...
d :-\

Arfa

One bad bulb condemns the entire line. Good thinking.
I use them everywhere and they work great. There are different brands,
some made in the US, some in China or other places. Some have a short
warm up cycle others have longer ones.
I will never go back to incandescent heater bulbs.
If anything I will move onto to LEDs. Do you have stone wheels on your car?



--
LSMFT

Simple job, assist the assistant of the physicist.

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

What I usually find on the sticker is a 6004 lb GVW. Yet, when the
vehicle is actually weighed empty (curb weight), it usually measures
considerably less. I have no idea how the GVW is actually calculated,
but I suspect there's a bit of creative number juggling happening in
order to get the weight up to over 6000 lbs. GVW includes payload,
passengers, and all options. They probably crammed a half dozen
aspiring Sumo wrestlers into the vehicle as passengers, while filling
the trunk with lead bricks until the springs almost flattened.


My '73 Chevy Step Van weighed 6150, with five gallons of gasoline,
and me out of the truck. The commercial tag was based on weight, and
would have went up at 6200 pounds.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

LSMFT wrote:

One bad bulb condemns the entire line. Good thinking.
I use them everywhere and they work great. There are different brands,
some made in the US, some in China or other places. Some have a short
warm up cycle others have longer ones.
I will never go back to incandescent heater bulbs.
If anything I will move onto to LEDs. Do you have stone wheels on your car?


Have you ever seen stone wheels on a car, and cartoons don't count?
Do you ever think before posting stupid, meaninless analogies?


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 13:29:38 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

What I usually find on the sticker is a 6004 lb GVW. Yet, when the
vehicle is actually weighed empty (curb weight), it usually measures
considerably less. I have no idea how the GVW is actually calculated,
but I suspect there's a bit of creative number juggling happening in
order to get the weight up to over 6000 lbs. GVW includes payload,
passengers, and all options. They probably crammed a half dozen
aspiring Sumo wrestlers into the vehicle as passengers, while filling
the trunk with lead bricks until the springs almost flattened.

My '73 Chevy Step Van weighed 6150, with five gallons of gasoline,
and me out of the truck. The commercial tag was based on weight, and
would have went up at 6200 pounds.

I wasn't referring to real commercial vehicles. My comments are in
reference to what would normally be considered a large passenger car
(such as an SUV or crew/family pickup), that has been "fattened" to
exceed 6000 lbs to avoid paying the gas guzzler tax.

My long gone 1972 Internationl 3/4 ton 1210 pickup, with service
boxes, had a GVW on the stick of 6300 lbs. However, when I weighed it
empty for the weight sticker at the dump, with 24 gallons of gas, and
all the tools and junk I could hide inside the boxes, they gave me a
sticker for 6200 lbs. If I had been in the drivers seat, it would
have hit 6300 lbs.

A short discussion of the tax benefits of buying a Hummer H2 behmoth
is at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummer_H2#Tax_benefits_in_the_United_States


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 13:29:38 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

What I usually find on the sticker is a 6004 lb GVW. Yet, when the
vehicle is actually weighed empty (curb weight), it usually measures
considerably less. I have no idea how the GVW is actually calculated,
but I suspect there's a bit of creative number juggling happening in
order to get the weight up to over 6000 lbs. GVW includes payload,
passengers, and all options. They probably crammed a half dozen
aspiring Sumo wrestlers into the vehicle as passengers, while filling
the trunk with lead bricks until the springs almost flattened.

My '73 Chevy Step Van weighed 6150, with five gallons of gasoline,
and me out of the truck. The commercial tag was based on weight, and
would have went up at 6200 pounds.

I wasn't referring to real commercial vehicles. My comments are in
reference to what would normally be considered a large passenger car
(such as an SUV or crew/family pickup), that has been "fattened" to
exceed 6000 lbs to avoid paying the gas guzzler tax.

My long gone 1972 Internationl 3/4 ton 1210 pickup, with service
boxes, had a GVW on the stick of 6300 lbs. However, when I weighed it
empty for the weight sticker at the dump, with 24 gallons of gas, and
all the tools and junk I could hide inside the boxes, they gave me a
sticker for 6200 lbs. If I had been in the drivers seat, it would
have hit 6300 lbs.


The StepVan was my service truck. it had a 292 inline six, and got
more that 22 miles per gallon with a couple tons of cargo.


A short discussion of the tax benefits of buying a Hummer H2 behmoth
is at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummer_H2#Tax_benefits_in_the_United_States


The down side is it makes you look like an impotent fool when you
drive one. 'Viagra on wheels!'


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

"LSMFT" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
Remember my post a few weeks back "Another Reason to Hate CFLs" ? Well,
here's yet another. That one that I put in my bench light, that started
it all, has now become so dim, that it is worse than useless. It has
been getting worse and worse over the last week. There are signs of the
ballast enclosure running hot, so I guess that any electros in there,
have just cooked dry, due to the fact that it is predominantly hanging
down, in a semi-enclosed 'shade', much like a lot of household room and
decorative lighting does. They are fundamentally a crap technology that
has been forced on a largely unwanting public, by supposedly green
issues with a dubious foundation in fact.

I know a lot of people on here seem to like the dreadful things, and
swear by them, but my continuing experience, judged from when they first
appeared, right up until now, just makes me want to swear *at* them ...

I have now found an internet site selling all varieties of
incandescents, including 60 watt pearl, so I shall be stocking up post
haste. I have also just started trying out the halogen versions of
traditional light bulbs, which still seem to make it into the eco-bollox
"book of energy savers", even though they only consume a few watts less
than their equivalent light-output 'traditional' tungsten cousins. Thus
far, I am impressed. I now have a 70 watt actual, 100 watt equivalent,
fitted to my hallway main light fixture. It is very bright, very easy
(for me anyway) to see by, and has a good colour spectrum, not in the
slightest way offensive to my eyes, unlike the CFLs, which no matter how
much anyone says that *they* can't tell the difference with, *I* can ...
d :-\

Arfa

One bad bulb condemns the entire line. Good thinking.
I use them everywhere and they work great. There are different brands,
some made in the US, some in China or other places. Some have a short warm
up cycle others have longer ones.
I will never go back to incandescent heater bulbs.
If anything I will move onto to LEDs. Do you have stone wheels on your
car?



--
LSMFT

Simple job, assist the assistant of the physicist.

And where did I ever say "one bad bulb" ? I actually said, if you took the
trouble to read the post properly, " - but my continuing experience, judged
from when they first
appeared, right up until now - "

Does that perhaps suggest to you that I have been trying different types
from all manner of manufacturers in all sorts of countries, for the last 15
years or more ? Yes, some do have a 'short warm up period' but that is still
massively long compared to an incandescent, which reaches its maximum light
output in a few mS - for all intents and purposes, instantly. There are some
places where CFLs have their uses, but for me, not many of them are inside
the house. If you like them, and want to fill your house with them, that's
fine. I however, don't.

But more than anything, I object to self-obsessed greenie politicians,
trying to force me to use them, based largely on a misconceived notion that
the things are 'eco-friendly'. If countries embraced nuclear power
generation in the way that France for instance, has, then there would not be
any need to mandate this nonsense, nor to cover the countryside and
coastline with stupid ugly and noisy windmills, and now to carpet the rest
of the countryside, in ridiculously inefficient photovoltaic panels ...

Arfa

In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
nor to cover the countryside and coastline with stupid ugly and noisy
windmills,

Strangely, I slept in a caravan in the middle of a wind farm in the NE of
Scotland just a few weeks ago. Was attending a classic car race meeting.
Those weren't noisy. Depending on wind direction you could sometimes just
hear a 'swish swish'. But this was in a very isolated part of the country.
Most parts of the UK have the distant sound of aircraft, etc.

--
*Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) Inscribed thus:

In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
nor to cover the countryside and coastline with stupid ugly and noisy
windmills,

Strangely, I slept in a caravan in the middle of a wind farm in the NE
of Scotland just a few weeks ago. Was attending a classic car race
meeting. Those weren't noisy. Depending on wind direction you could
sometimes just hear a 'swish swish'. But this was in a very isolated
part of the country. Most parts of the UK have the distant sound of
aircraft, etc.

I agree with Dave ! I too have done the same, slept in a camper van in
the middle of a wind farm ! No real noise at all.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

"Baron" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) Inscribed thus:

In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
nor to cover the countryside and coastline with stupid ugly and noisy
windmills,

Strangely, I slept in a caravan in the middle of a wind farm in the NE
of Scotland just a few weeks ago. Was attending a classic car race
meeting. Those weren't noisy. Depending on wind direction you could
sometimes just hear a 'swish swish'. But this was in a very isolated
part of the country. Most parts of the UK have the distant sound of
aircraft, etc.

I agree with Dave ! I too have done the same, slept in a camper van in
the middle of a wind farm ! No real noise at all.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

Perhaps it depends on the distance from them, or maybe the design of the
blades. Either way, noisy or not, they are still a blot on the landscape,
and IMHO, a huge waste of resources for the relatively small amount of power
that they generate. And actually, who's to say that by 'stealing' the wind,
they don't cause some 'butterfly effect' elsewhere ? :-) Little of what
man does actually has a zero effect on his environment ...

On what Dave says about the distant sound of aircraft etc, it's strange how
that noise is missed when it's not there. When I was a kid, my mother had
ticking clocks all over the house. You never noticed them when they were
running, but if one had stopped, you could hear that it had, as soon as you
walked through the front door.

Likewise, did you notice it when the volcano grounded all the air traffic ?
It was preternaturally quiet outside ( I live in the countryside, so it's
quite quiet anyway). Even the birds and other animals seemed unnaturally
quiet, so presumably, they could hear that there was nothing to hear as
well, and they didn't like it. When we had that earthquake a couple of years
back in the early hours, I was sitting here at the computer, and some
minutes before it rumbled through under the house, the cows in the field
behind the house, as well as owls and foxes, went bananas, so I guess they
must have been able to sense it coming.

Arfa

"Baron" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) Inscribed thus:

In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
nor to cover the countryside and coastline with stupid ugly and noisy
windmills,

Strangely, I slept in a caravan in the middle of a wind farm in the NE
of Scotland just a few weeks ago. Was attending a classic car race
meeting. Those weren't noisy. Depending on wind direction you could
sometimes just hear a 'swish swish'. But this was in a very isolated
part of the country. Most parts of the UK have the distant sound of
aircraft, etc.

I agree with Dave ! I too have done the same, slept in a camper van in
the middle of a wind farm ! No real noise at all.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

I've been to wind farms myself. The only noise is sort of a muted
'whoosh-whoosh', and that with a standard 3 blade unit. There are spiracle
types made to make even less noise.

I think people that don't want alternative energy are equating windmills
with giant fans, which make much more noise because they are moving air, and
not air moving them.. BIG difference!

Brenda Ann wrote:

"Baron" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) Inscribed thus:

In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
nor to cover the countryside and coastline with stupid ugly and noisy
windmills,

Strangely, I slept in a caravan in the middle of a wind farm in the NE
of Scotland just a few weeks ago. Was attending a classic car race
meeting. Those weren't noisy. Depending on wind direction you could
sometimes just hear a 'swish swish'. But this was in a very isolated
part of the country. Most parts of the UK have the distant sound of
aircraft, etc.

I agree with Dave ! I too have done the same, slept in a camper van in
the middle of a wind farm ! No real noise at all.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

I've been to wind farms myself. The only noise is sort of a muted
'whoosh-whoosh', and that with a standard 3 blade unit. There are spiracle
types made to make even less noise.

I think people that don't want alternative energy are equating windmills
with giant fans, which make much more noise because they are moving air, and
not air moving them.. BIG difference!


Have you seen any of the videos of them failing in high winds and
exploding?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nSB1SdVHqQ


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...


"Baron" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) Inscribed thus:

In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
nor to cover the countryside and coastline with stupid ugly and noisy
windmills,

Strangely, I slept in a caravan in the middle of a wind farm in the NE
of Scotland just a few weeks ago. Was attending a classic car race
meeting. Those weren't noisy. Depending on wind direction you could
sometimes just hear a 'swish swish'. But this was in a very isolated
part of the country. Most parts of the UK have the distant sound of
aircraft, etc.

I agree with Dave ! I too have done the same, slept in a camper van in
the middle of a wind farm ! No real noise at all.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

I've been to wind farms myself. The only noise is sort of a muted
'whoosh-whoosh', and that with a standard 3 blade unit. There are spiracle
types made to make even less noise.

I think people that don't want alternative energy are equating windmills
with giant fans, which make much more noise because they are moving air,
and not air moving them.. BIG difference!



I don't think that there are many people who are sane, that are against
'alternative' energy, per se. The trick is that the word needs to be
combined with that other little word "practical". That seems to get
forgotten in all this. PV panels are all very well, if you've got a country
below say 45 deg N, with a lot of unused desert available. Even then, you
have the logistics and losses involved in shifting the power that you
generate, to anywhere that it's needed. In the UK, and most of Europe, there
just isn't enough year round sun of any intensity, to make the projects
feasible, which is why other countries in the EU have tried it, and rejected
it. But of course, the dumb old UK have got to give it a go themselves,
rather than learn from others' mistakes ...

Likewise, what use are thousands of windmills that don't generate for at
least 50% of the time, due to the winds being either too low in speed or,
staggeringly, too high ! I haven't looked much into the practicalities of
the tidal windmills that are now being installed, but it strikes me that the
maintenance costs of these are likely to be rather high, and the lifetime in
corrosive salt water, comparatively short.

We already have an 'alternative' power technology that is both clean and
practical, and that is nuclear. I really don't know why people have such a
problem with it. The French don't. When we are all sitting shivering in our
houses because some eastern bloc altercation has cut off our gas supplies,
and waiting for the sun to shine and the wind to blow, the French will be
chortling away, offering to sell us even more of their nuclear power than
they do now, at even more inflated prices. I appreciate that there are
potential issues with recycling waste nuclear material, but I am sure that
these are not insurmountable.

And don't make the mistake of thinking that 'alternative power' is all about
responsible people trying to save the planet. It's not. Whilst such
scientists and eco-minded people may have been at the centre of the original
concepts, it is now all about big business. Selling the public these
technologies by way of the hysterical global warming issue (trends now
indicate a cooling again BTW, much the same as we were being told back in
the 70s) and pseudo science that has little if any foundation in fact, is
making huge amounts of money for companies who are having their products
built by the biggest industrial polluters in the world, and don't actually
give a toss about green issues ...

Arfa

In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
And actually, who's to say that by 'stealing' the wind, they don't
cause some 'butterfly effect' elsewhere ? :-) Little of what man
does actually has a zero effect on his environment ...


Well, wind power was one of the earliest forms of energy man used for
moving things - sailing ships, windmills, etc. Well before steam was
harnessed.

Perhaps solar power saps the sun's rays too? ;-)

--
*Great groups from little icons grow *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Arfa Daily wrote:
I don't think that there are many people who are sane, that are against
'alternative' energy, per se. The trick is that the word needs to be
combined with that other little word "practical". That seems to get
forgotten in all this. PV panels are all very well, if you've got a country
below say 45 deg N, with a lot of unused desert available.

The tax situation also matters. I have a friend who lives near Philadelphia,
who put an array up on his single family house. He is nowhere near a desert.

His nominal income tax rate is around 33%. He bought a $30,000 dollar
array and was able to take it off of his income tax, so that reduced the
price to $20k.

He was able to get another $10k off in state tax credits and grants.

Because of the "cap and trade" law, his power company is paying him for the
right to claim that his array provides power to "the grid" as if they were
doing it, which nets him $2,500 a year. They also pay him per killowat hour
he does put onto the grid.

It's not 100% free electricty as it has no storage capability, so it becomes
cloudy, or during the night, he has to buy electrcity. For saftey reasons,
it shuts down if the main electricity goes out.

The array has a long term warranty and is insured as part of his homeowner's
policy. So basicly, he has invested $10k for a $30k array, and after 4 years,
anything he gets from it in cap and trade fees, reduced electrical bills,
and additional value on his house is free.

Around 2000, a co-worker who lived in the UK (same company, different offices),
was looking at using special heating cells designed to heat GPS satellites
from "earthshine". His estimate that for 3000 UKP total investment, he
would save 450 UKP a year in gas.

I'm not sure where he lived, it was withing motorcycle commuting distance
of "The City".

I lost touch in 2002, I wonder if it worked? I expect that UK heating gas
bills have gone up in 10 years.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
To help restaurants, as part of the "stimulus package", everyone must order
dessert. As part of the socialized health plan, you are forbidden to eat it. :-)

Brenda Ann Inscribed thus:



"Baron" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) Inscribed thus:

In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
nor to cover the countryside and coastline with stupid ugly and
noisy windmills,

Strangely, I slept in a caravan in the middle of a wind farm in the
NE of Scotland just a few weeks ago. Was attending a classic car
race meeting. Those weren't noisy. Depending on wind direction you
could sometimes just hear a 'swish swish'. But this was in a very
isolated part of the country. Most parts of the UK have the distant
sound of aircraft, etc.

I agree with Dave ! I too have done the same, slept in a camper van
in
the middle of a wind farm ! No real noise at all.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

I've been to wind farms myself. The only noise is sort of a muted
'whoosh-whoosh', and that with a standard 3 blade unit. There are
spiracle types made to make even less noise.

I think people that don't want alternative energy are equating
windmills with giant fans, which make much more noise because they are
moving air, and not air moving them.. BIG difference!

Yes I agree. It annoys me that that the objectors try to use noise
pollution from wind farms as a method of garnering support. I won't
deny that the visual aspect is intrusive.

We have a group locally, only four or five people that want to ban wind
farms. They are using the arguments above as a method of trying to
bully the local residents into agreeing with them. The laughable thing
is the wind farm in question is going to be built more than ten miles
from the village. In addition its a fairly wooded area, so people
aren't going to be able to see them anyway !

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

Arfa Daily Inscribed thus:



"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...


"Baron" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) Inscribed thus:

In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
nor to cover the countryside and coastline with stupid ugly and
noisy windmills,

Strangely, I slept in a caravan in the middle of a wind farm in the
NE of Scotland just a few weeks ago. Was attending a classic car
race meeting. Those weren't noisy. Depending on wind direction you
could sometimes just hear a 'swish swish'. But this was in a very
isolated part of the country. Most parts of the UK have the distant
sound of aircraft, etc.

I agree with Dave ! I too have done the same, slept in a camper van
in
the middle of a wind farm ! No real noise at all.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

I've been to wind farms myself. The only noise is sort of a muted
'whoosh-whoosh', and that with a standard 3 blade unit. There are
spiracle types made to make even less noise.

I think people that don't want alternative energy are equating
windmills with giant fans, which make much more noise because they
are moving air, and not air moving them.. BIG difference!



Hi Arfa,

I don't think that there are many people who are sane, that are
against 'alternative' energy, per se. The trick is that the word needs
to be combined with that other little word "practical". That seems to
get forgotten in all this. PV panels are all very well, if you've got
a country below say 45 deg N, with a lot of unused desert available.
Even then, you have the logistics and losses involved in shifting the
power that you generate, to anywhere that it's needed. In the UK, and
most of Europe, there just isn't enough year round sun of any
intensity, to make the projects feasible, which is why other countries
in the EU have tried it, and rejected it. But of course, the dumb old
UK have got to give it a go themselves, rather than learn from others'
mistakes ...

Ahh, but we are supposed to be the technological leaders... aren't we !

Likewise, what use are thousands of windmills that don't generate for
at least 50% of the time, due to the winds being either too low in
speed or, staggeringly, too high ! I haven't looked much into the
practicalities of the tidal windmills that are now being installed,
but it strikes me that the maintenance costs of these are likely to be
rather high, and the lifetime in corrosive salt water, comparatively
short.

Yes maintenance costs bother me too. I wonder how long it will be
before we start scrapping systems because of those costs.

We already have an 'alternative' power technology that is both clean
and practical, and that is nuclear. I really don't know why people
have such a problem with it. The French don't.

I agree the French have embraced the Nuclear nettle and have taken huge
steps to protect the plants from attack by terrorists and the like.
I've seen first hand the twenty foot, triple razor wire, barrier fences
and the deep ditches between them. All the cameras and IR lighting
used to monitor the area. Not small areas either ! The one that I
visited was a 20Km drive just to get around it. They are not very
visible either, having lots of trees and such planted around reduces
its visual impact. Unlike a UK power station, you could drive right
past a French one and not even know it was there.

When we are all sitting
shivering in our houses because some eastern bloc altercation has cut
off our gas supplies, and waiting for the sun to shine and the wind to
blow, the French will be chortling away, offering to sell us even more
of their nuclear power than they do now, at even more inflated prices.
I appreciate that there are potential issues with recycling waste
nuclear material, but I am sure that these are not insurmountable.

Hasn't the Uk government just got into bed with EDF on the basis that
the French will share there Nuclear technologies, or they hope they
will. Either way EDF will maximise the extraction of profits from the
UK populace to pay for it !

And don't make the mistake of thinking that 'alternative power' is all
about responsible people trying to save the planet. It's not. Whilst
such scientists and eco-minded people may have been at the centre of
the original concepts, it is now all about big business. Selling the
public these technologies by way of the hysterical global warming
issue (trends now indicate a cooling again BTW, much the same as we
were being told back in the 70s) and pseudo science that has little if
any foundation in fact, is making huge amounts of money for companies
who are having their products built by the biggest industrial
polluters in the world, and don't actually give a toss about green
issues ...

Arfa

Agreed ! The feudal system is alive and well... The serfs will pay !

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

Perhaps it depends on the distance from them, or maybe the design of the
blades. Either way, noisy or not, they are still a blot on the landscape,
and IMHO, a huge waste of resources for the relatively small amount of
power
that they generate.

Do you have evidence for that, one way or the other?


And actually, who's to say that by 'stealing' the wind, they
don't cause some 'butterfly effect' elsewhere ? :-) Little of what
man does actually has a zero effect on his environment ...

The same thought has crossed my mind, too. But they're unlikely to have a
significant effect, for roughly the same reason that humans are unable to
deliberately modify the weather -- it takes too much energy.


Nuclear reactors don't bother me, much. Nuclear waste does. Do you know what
a pebble bed reactor is? It appears to have the potentional to end all the
problems with nuclear energy, but nobody's doing much about it.

baron wrote:
Ahh, but we are supposed to be the technological leaders... aren't we !

That was so last decade. Now with the "austerity programme" (did I spell
that correctly?), 20% VAT, and multiculturism, you will be just trying
not to get blown up nor starve, to keep the lights on and not
freeze this winter. :-(

You might as well get out those old books on how to make do with food
rations. I don't have them, but read a set someone lent me of reprints
from the Imperial War Museum.

The only problem with them, is that around 1943, supplies of powdered milk
and eggs, and canned pork (SPAM) started to arrive from the US and Canada.
I don't think there will be much to spare this time around. People on food
mailing lists from the US are complaining about the high prices of food, and
the lack of the usual holiday (it's Thanksgiving in the US soon) sales. :-(


Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
To help restaurants, as part of the "stimulus package", everyone must order
dessert. As part of the socialized health plan, you are forbidden to eat it. :-)

I don't think that there are many people who are sane, that are against
'alternative' energy, per se. The trick is that the word needs to be
combined with that other little word "practical". That seems to get
forgotten in all this. PV panels are all very well, if you've got a
country
below say 45 deg N, with a lot of unused desert available. Even then, you
have the logistics and losses involved in shifting the power that you
generate, to anywhere that it's needed.

This is not a problem -- not in the US, anyway. We have a big connected
grid.

People keep saying that solar energy doesn't work at night. Correct. But we
need less energy at nigh. The idea is to have a mix of energy sources.


We already have an 'alternative' power technology that is both clean and
practical, and that is nuclear.

You talk about "practical", but what is the "practical" way to get rid of
the waste?


I appreciate that there are potential issues with recycling waste
nuclear material, but I am sure that these are not insurmountable.

It isn't just what's left over from the fuel rods. It's also the stuff that
the radiation contaminaes.


And don't make the mistake of thinking that 'alternative power' is all
about responsible people trying to save the planet. It's not. Whilst such
scientists and eco-minded people may have been at the centre of the
original concepts, it is now all about big business. Selling the public
these
technologies by way of the hysterical global warming issue (trends now
indicate a cooling again BTW, much the same as we were being told back
in the 70s) and pseudo science that has little if any foundation in fact,
is
making huge amounts of money for companies who are having their products
built by the biggest industrial polluters in the world, and don't actually
give a toss about green issues ...

I thought you had more sense. Where do you get this business about "cooling
trends"?

Regardless, global warming ultimately has nothing to do with it. We need
safe, renewable sources of energy. We can't keep burning fossil fuels
indefinitely. THAT problem should be driving us to develop them as quickly
as possible. We should have been working on it aggressively after WW II.
But, no. "The Market" will automatically solve all our problems.

It appears that work on extracting oil from algae (which appear to be the
source of natural oil deposits) has been going on for more than 30 years,
mostly at oil companies. Why do you think we haven't seen any progress?

There are some things that are too important to be left to the people who
profit from them.

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
I don't think that there are many people who are sane, that are against
'alternative' energy, per se. The trick is that the word needs to be
combined with that other little word "practical". That seems to get
forgotten in all this. PV panels are all very well, if you've got a
country
below say 45 deg N, with a lot of unused desert available.

The tax situation also matters. I have a friend who lives near
Philadelphia,
who put an array up on his single family house. He is nowhere near a
desert.

His nominal income tax rate is around 33%. He bought a $30,000 dollar
array and was able to take it off of his income tax, so that reduced the
price to $20k.

He was able to get another $10k off in state tax credits and grants.

Because of the "cap and trade" law, his power company is paying him for
the
right to claim that his array provides power to "the grid" as if they were
doing it, which nets him $2,500 a year. They also pay him per killowat
hour
he does put onto the grid.

It's not 100% free electricty as it has no storage capability, so it
becomes
cloudy, or during the night, he has to buy electrcity. For saftey reasons,
it shuts down if the main electricity goes out.

The array has a long term warranty and is insured as part of his
homeowner's
policy. So basicly, he has invested $10k for a $30k array, and after 4
years,
anything he gets from it in cap and trade fees, reduced electrical bills,
and additional value on his house is free.

Around 2000, a co-worker who lived in the UK (same company, different
offices),
was looking at using special heating cells designed to heat GPS satellites
from "earthshine". His estimate that for 3000 UKP total investment, he
would save 450 UKP a year in gas.

I'm not sure where he lived, it was withing motorcycle commuting distance
of "The City".

I lost touch in 2002, I wonder if it worked? I expect that UK heating gas
bills have gone up in 10 years.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
To help restaurants, as part of the "stimulus package", everyone must
order
dessert. As part of the socialized health plan, you are forbidden to eat
it. :-)


There is a potential ;-) problem in Germany with so many uncontrolled small
scale PV rooftops if there is a very sunny day coinciding with minimal grid
load.

I wonder if it will be in my lifetime there will be the pan-Europe grid
(probably very high voltage DC strangely) connecting Iceland geothermal /
Norway hydro/ French nuclear / N Africa solar together

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
There are some things that are too important to be left to the people who
profit from them.

Prime example in the UK.

Thatcher close the coal mines to punish the miners. Only possible because
we had just got North Sea gas on stream. Now, some 20 years later it is
getting exhausted and we have to import gas at vast cost.

Wouldn't it be nice to find a politician who can see beyond the next
election? And actually have the good of the majority in mind?

--
*Does fuzzy logic tickle? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

There's another, broader issue here that hardly anyone pays attention to...
overpopulation.

When I was a kid, the world's population reached 2Gcbl, and people were
afraid of starvation, disease, etc. It's now 6Gcbl, and still growing,
partly due to the "green revolution".

You don't need to be Malthus to understand that the Earth doesn't have
infinite carrying capacity. If things don't change, at some point the system
/has/ to collapse.

Somewhere between now and then we will see drastic changes, with governments
controlling the size of the homes we build (probably outlawing single-family
dwellings), how many children we can have, how many calories a day we can
consume, and so forth. (See "Soylent Green". I haven't read Harry Harrison's
"Make Room, Make Room", but the idea of recycling human protein is /not/ in
it.)

You get violently angry when I insist that government force people to do
what's right about trivial things -- such as how you light their homes. Wait
until you see what happens to your /basic/, "inalienable" rights when there
isn't enough land to produce food or house people. And you think Communist
societies are bad...

There are simply too many people. Imagine what things would be like if there
were only 500Mcbl. (By the way, I'm in favor of across-the-board population
reduction. The people in developed countries consume too much of everything,
and there are simply too many people in poor countries.)

The problem of overpopulation is largely due to developed countries
spreading death control, without forcing the people who receive it to
practice birth control. (And I'm not talking about abortion.) If the
potential recipients of death control say "Our religion (or social beliefs,
etc) prohibits birth control," they will hear "Our understanding of biology
prohibits helping people who don't understand what happens when you disrupt
the natural order of things." Which is what death control is -- a disruption
of the natural order, in which disease and lack of food keep populations
from growing rapidly.

If you don't understand this, think of human beings as deer, and disease,
lack of clean water, malnutrition, etc, as wolves. What happens when you
start systematically killing off the wolves?

There are some things that are too important to be
left to the people who profit from them.

Prime example in the UK.

Thatcher close the coal mines to punish the miners. Only possible
because we had just got North Sea gas on stream. Now, some 20
years later it is getting exhausted and we have to import gas at vast
cost.

Wouldn't it be nice to find a politician who can see beyond the next
election? And actually have the good of the majority in mind?

Unfortunately, both Liberals and Conservatives pass laws based on what they
believe is morally or philosophically correct, without /any/ regard for the
consequences.

There might be unintended consequences, but hardly any of them are
unpredictable.

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Wouldn't it be nice to find a politician who can see beyond the next
election? And actually have the good of the majority in mind?

Unfortunately, both Liberals and Conservatives pass laws based on what
they believe is morally or philosophically correct, without /any/ regard
for the consequences.

If only that were true. At least it would be honest.

There might be unintended consequences, but hardly any of them are
unpredictable.

Absolutely. There were plenty of predictions about the amount of gas in
'our' part of the North Sea and indeed there is actually more. But it has
been squandered producing 'cheap' electricity. When that can be made from
other means. But other means ain't so good as gas for heating and industry.

--
*I must always remember that I'm unique, just like everyone else. *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
And actually, who's to say that by 'stealing' the wind, they don't
cause some 'butterfly effect' elsewhere ? :-) Little of what man
does actually has a zero effect on his environment ...


Well, wind power was one of the earliest forms of energy man used for
moving things - sailing ships, windmills, etc. Well before steam was
harnessed.

Perhaps solar power saps the sun's rays too? ;-)

--

Dave Plowman

I'm sure it does Dave, I'm sure it does ... :-)

Arfa

William Sommerwerck wrote:
This is not a problem -- not in the US, anyway. We have a big connected
grid.

Look it up. It's about 33% efficent, i.e. 1/3 of the electricity put into
the grid comes out. Still with solar and other passive power that's
mostly an up-front cost, you just need to replace fossil fuel buring plants
with an equivalent output passive system.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
To help restaurants, as part of the "stimulus package", everyone must order
dessert. As part of the socialized health plan, you are forbidden to eat it. :-)

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Perhaps it depends on the distance from them, or maybe the design of the
blades. Either way, noisy or not, they are still a blot on the landscape,
and IMHO, a huge waste of resources for the relatively small amount of
power
that they generate.

Do you have evidence for that, one way or the other?



Well, you could try having a read of this one. I know it's a 'popular press'
article and there will of course be people who immediately scream that the
press are all liars, but I think that the basic figures quoted, and some of
the reasons that that are stated for the evangelical take up of this
technology, are probably thereabouts on the money, as I have read similar
ones elsewhere

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/782...ind-farms.html

Arfa





And actually, who's to say that by 'stealing' the wind, they
don't cause some 'butterfly effect' elsewhere ? :-) Little of what
man does actually has a zero effect on his environment ...

The same thought has crossed my mind, too. But they're unlikely to have a
significant effect, for roughly the same reason that humans are unable to
deliberately modify the weather -- it takes too much energy.


Nuclear reactors don't bother me, much. Nuclear waste does. Do you know
what
a pebble bed reactor is? It appears to have the potentional to end all the
problems with nuclear energy, but nobody's doing much about it.