Pete C. wrote:

HeyBub wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:

Hi,
Nearby town of Banff installed LED street lights with solar panels.
Very cool looking light and it is cool running, no bugs get attracted
kep them clean. Cost a lot initially but for the long run, it's
winner. LED bulbs now are expensive but with time the price will come
down. I have a few small ones in the house, they use couple Watts per
bulb.

My city, Houston, is retrofitting its traffic signals with LEDs. They cost
more initially, but since the bulbs won't have to be replaced for, what,
fifty years, they should recoup the expense fairly soon.


I doubt the 50 yr thing since I've see LED signals failing. The good
thing is that they have a "soft" failure mode, losing a few strings of
LEDs rather than the whole thing at once like the old incandescent
signals. The power savings of the LED vs. the 300W incandescents they
replace becomes significant when multiplied by all the active signals in
a city.


Can you imagine what it takes to change the bulb on an overhead traffic
signal?


About an hour, a bucket truck and a cop to handle traffic.
Hi,
Also cars/trucks are now getting LED lights; tail lights, signal lights,
etc. They are 1/20 seconds faster turning on. This split second
difference could lessen traffic accident.

On Dec 23, 10:23*am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Dec 23, 10:02 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:





"Frank" frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote in message

...

Dan_Musicant wrote:
Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.

John Barry wrote:

Jim Redelfs wrote:

The Nanny Geniuses in D.C. just passed legislation that, in addition
to putting some serious "hurt" on our domestic car and light truck
industry, kills off those outmoded, wasteful and environmentally
DEVASTATING electric lamps we've all come to know and love.

Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb.
(Thomas Alva Edison will surely turn over in his grave).

Stock-up and horde 'em now, folks. They'll be worth a LOT in 10-15
years on the black market.

I just switched all my exterior entryways and garage "eyebrow"
fixtures to CF lamps. I am considering switching BACK the one beside
the front door.

I rarely use exterior lighting. Mostly, I switch-on the front porch
light when there is someone at the door - a rare occurrence.

On those occasions, I want IMMEDIATE light.
However, right now, it is 12F outside and that curly, compact
fluorescent lamp outside, by the front door, doesn't provide usable
light worth a damn for a minute or two.

With no apologies to anyone, I believe that switching to CF lamps
won't, over the LONG "haul", provide a bit of "relief" to our
ever-increasing energy consumption. Although that implies that our
ever-increasing energy consumption needs relief, I am adamantly
UNconvinced of that in any case.

The Energy Bill provided for NO new energy.

All the windmills, solar panels, methane plants and CF bulbs in the
world cannot, and never will, provide for our energy needs.
Conservation alone is NOT the answer, even IF there were a problem.
We have adequate stores of fossil fuels to keep our grandchildren's
grandchildren's grandchildren cool or warm and productive. Whether we
can overcome all the hand-wringing, crybaby, do-gooders that think
they're saving something by declaring wide swaths of our land "off
limits" to fossil fuel harvesting is another matter.

We learned how to do it cleanly, neatly and with minimal environmental
impact YEARS ago. But that's not good enough now. We simply CAN'T do
it because of some PERCEIVED, detrimental environmental impact.
That's B.S.

How about slashing the "red tape" and getting a few, new nuclear power
generating stations on-line within ten years?

We should drill for oil and gas in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife
Refuge)?

Why do you think Seward talked Congress into buying Alaska?

Do you think he would have ever believed that there'd come a day when
vast miles of it would be virtually off-limits to any resource
harvesting?

Despite incessant impediments from environmentalists, the Tans-Alaska
Pipeline was finally built. But, Shazam! The devastation to the
environment and wildlife it was predicted to cause never happened.
They were WRONG. They're wrong now.

CF bulbs and set-back thermostats are NOT the final solution, even if
there was a problem. Heck, such measures aren't even a viable stop-gap.

We need more energy. Let's go get it. -Jim Redelfs


Nonsense- to the assertion that extracting fossil fuels faster will
solve our problems. It'll just bring forward the day of reckoning what
to do when it becomes unaffordable.

There's so much we can do to reduce demand and make much better use of
what's in the "pipeline" and what's yet to be invented.

Consensus among many seems to be that there's no single solution. Maybe
opening our minds to reasonable means to cure our coal/oil/gas addiction
will help, AND provide marketable solutions for the rest of the planet.

John
Hi,
That guy must be joking! Or he is a part of problem, not solution.

Tony Hwang wrote:

Hi,
Also cars/trucks are now getting LED lights; tail lights, signal lights,
etc. They are 1/20 seconds faster turning on. This split second
difference could lessen traffic accident.

Another advantage is the fact that the LED life expectancy exceeds the
length of time the average person keeps a car, which helps insure they
are actually working since few people check their lights regularly.

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 06:21:12 -0800, Dan_Musicant
wrote:

Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable
light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers.
I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in
the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please
doesn't
work in this country.

Do us all a favor and leave the United States of America. This
country will be a much better place after you leave. You don't
belong
here. You'd do much better in a country such as Iraq. Don't let
the
door slam you in the ass as you leave.

Daryl

Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?

It would certainly be a good goal, however it will not in any way solve
or reduce the problems that it helped to create. Indeed if we stop
buying oil from the ME it could make the situation there even worse.
Since China would likely buy whatever we don't that later issue may not
be as significant now.

OK. Now we're getting somewhere. What if a family of four can get a 35%
improvement in gas mileage by owning a certain vehicle, without losing
any
of the REAL (as opposed to imaginary) advantages of an SUV?

Not a valid option as there is no vehicle I'm aware of that gets 35%
better MPG than a typical SUV and still has the same real advantages of
the SUV.

My kid's 4 cylinder 1996 Camry wagon gets 35% better gas mileage than the
typical 6 or 8 cylinder SUV. How about offering the car makers some sort of
incentive for bringing back wagons? There *is* a demand for them. He's found
3 notes stuck under his windshield wiper from people wondering if he wanted
to sell the car. These vehicles satisfy one of the needs fulfilled by SUVs:
Carrying lots of stuff without crowding the passengers.



Just because you don't believe someone else needs the
capabilities of an SUV does not in any way make those capabilities
imaginary.


The glut of SUVs in used car lots would seem to contradict how well they
fulfilled the needs of their prior owners. For instance, SUVs are *not*
better in winter weather for the vast majority of drivers who never go off
road. They're often sold with off-road tires that are hideous in snow.
Safety in accidents? Not really. Rollover accidents are more deadly than
other types. According to the NY State Police, they see more fatalities with
SUVs in highway accidents where another vehicle wasn't directly involved
with the impact. Why? Upside down in the median.



Is a 35%
improvement not worth thinking about, especially if multiplied by the
number
of SUVs in this country?

There are other ways to make a more significant improvement without any
change in vehicles. A substantial amount of our vehicle use is in
unnecessary commuting and solo commuting. The current fuel prices are
already improving the situation by triggering more carpooling and more
telecommuting.

There's a limit to how much of that can take place. Twice a week, I pass by
a park & ride lot. It's as empty as it's been for many years.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?

Sure. But since oil is fungible, how can you reasonably do it?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


OK, then. How long do you think it's appropriate to wait before
finding out that market-driven forces are not going to solve a
problem? A year? 20 years? Two generations?


Forever. The market is not always right, but it is right far more
often than any other technique.


Bars here are doing MORE business since it became illegal to smoke in
bars. I seriously doubt "the market" would've figured that out
without a kick in the pants. And, Detroit *never* would've dealt with
car emissions issues without the government stepping in. Automakers
had no financial incentive to deal with it.

You should be outraged! MORE drinking! Doesn't that offend your
sensibilities of what's good for people?

There's another concept called the "Tragedy of the Commons" that's an
exception to unfettered personal actions. You're attempting to expand that
concept to all human actions.


Do you think car makers would've dealt with emissions without having the
screws put to them?

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , wrote:


Once again, Bush is taking away our freedoms as American citizens.


Idiot. That bill came from the Democrat-controlled *Congress*, not from the
President.

[snip]

To say it exactly the way I feel. Bush and his whole corrupt political
party can go straight to hell. If he wants to send his goon squad to
my home to inspect my lightbulbs, this old man still knows how to
kill, courtesy of the Republican party's very own Nixon sending me to
Nam, to fight another useless Republican inspired war.


Idiot. Nixon the Republican *ended* that war, which Kennedy the Democrat
started, and Johnson the Democrat escalated far out of control.

Hmmm,
I can see there are many many idiots in America down on from president, LOL!

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


You said "Let the market decide". That's pretty funny, although
you
didn't mean it to be funny. "The market" includes millions of
fools
who have absolutely NO need for the special mechanical
characteristics of SUVs, but they bought them anyway because
advertising told them to. "The market" made some pretty lousy
decisions.

"Need" is not the determining factor, "want" is.


In your next message, you will say that "the market" will
correct
this
mistake. Don't count on it.

It's not a mistake - it's called 'freedom.'


Yeah. Freedom to feed more dollars to the country that gave us
9/11.
That's
called stupid.

If we were to stop buying oil from the ME it would not in any way
eliminate the problems there that it helped to create, it could
actually
make them even worse.

Worse? Let me guess: Create more poverty, and thus more unrest?

A distinct possibility considering that the ME has no significant
economy other than oil.

Based on everything I've read, much of the unrest in Saudi Arabia, for
instance, is *already* due to the gross inequities between the royals and
everyone else. This is why the royal family continues to support schools
whose teachers instruct students that WE are the reason for their
miserable
lives.

We should've fulfilled their fantasies and put THEIR country under new
management, instead of Iraq. But, that would've required balls.

So if we remove their source of revenue so there isn't any for them to
trickle down to the impoverished masses, this will make the situation
better? They'll just point the finger at us yet again and their ignorant
masses will mindlessly believe it again. If their masses weren't so
mindless they might figure out that they need to overthrow their
oppressors.


That's a pretty weak argument, Pete. Funny, but weak.

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:


There are other ways to make a more significant improvement without any
change in vehicles. A substantial amount of our vehicle use is in
unnecessary commuting and solo commuting. The current fuel prices are
already improving the situation by triggering more carpooling and more
telecommuting.

Also, we need pull some of the "Highway taxes" away from highways and
let it go to building other forms of transportation like light rail,
etc. We well and truly blew that over the years.
FWIW, I have long suggested that the Feds zero out their gas and
highway-related taxes (along with the money) and let the individual
states raise theirs to take up the slack and let them spend it as they
see fit.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
willshak wrote:


If you include the time it takes for the truck to get there, perhaps.
Most times, the changing of a traffic signal bulb takes about as much
time as a few regular cycles of the light.
Take it from someone who used to have to handle traffic while the
change was done.

I was thinking the same thing. Must have a heckuva union (g).

I invented a device and tried to sell it to the city. It was a bipod for
keeping long-handled tools vertical.

I figured the city could carry my invention on their trucks and do away with
having to have four people standing around the holes holding shovels and
hoes in an upright position.

I'm sure it was union opposition that prevented me from getting a contract.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


You said "Let the market decide". That's pretty funny, although you
didn't mean it to be funny. "The market" includes millions of fools
who have absolutely NO need for the special mechanical
characteristics of SUVs, but they bought them anyway because
advertising told them to. "The market" made some pretty lousy
decisions.

"Need" is not the determining factor, "want" is.


In your next message, you will say that "the market" will correct
this mistake. Don't count on it.

It's not a mistake - it's called 'freedom.'



Yeah. Freedom to feed more dollars to the country that gave us 9/11.
That's called stupid.

So, you would deny ME the ability to send money to some country because
you don't like what some citizens of that country did?


I'm going to make a statement below. I want you to tell me if the statement
is true or false.

The United States now has laws in place which make it a crime for
"charities" or corporations to funnel money to terrorist organizations.

TRUE OR FALSE?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Dan_Musicant wrote:

I use CFL's not to save the planet but because
in the long run, I save money.

I get it, like a lot of people you believe in being selfish, and
worse, you ridicule people who do things for reasons other than
selfish reasons.

It's called the "Invisible Hand." When everyone acts in their own
best interests, the overall good is magnified.


Nonsense.

Heh! Adam Smith postulated the concept in the late 18th Century. You,
evidently, are the only person in 230 years to disagree with the idea.



That's correct.

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:

Hi,
Also cars/trucks are now getting LED lights; tail lights, signal lights,
etc. They are 1/20 seconds faster turning on. This split second
difference could lessen traffic accident.

Another advantage is the fact that the LED life expectancy exceeds the
length of time the average person keeps a car, which helps insure they
are actually working since few people check their lights regularly.

I would be more impressed with that as a safety measure if it exceeded
the average life span of the car. All that means is that the guy who
buys it from me is more likely to have problems.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:


There are other ways to make a more significant improvement without any
change in vehicles. A substantial amount of our vehicle use is in
unnecessary commuting and solo commuting. The current fuel prices are
already improving the situation by triggering more carpooling and more
telecommuting.

Also, we need pull some of the "Highway taxes" away from highways and
let it go to building other forms of transportation like light rail,
etc. We well and truly blew that over the years.


Good idea (light rail), except for one problem: They *TEND TO BE* run by
municipalities. By comparison, highways are big money makers for the
construction industry. Until we cut off the cash flow from that industry to
politicians' pockets, you won't see light rail become a reality in much of
the country. Here (Rochester NY), a light rail plan was presented some years
ago as an alternative to widening one of our highways. There was a rail bed
already in place alongside the highway. For that and other reasons, the plan
was nearly perfect. It never got a serious evaluation by the county's
elected slobs. Instead, the highway was widened, which of course provides a
nice annuity for the companies that need to maintain it constantly.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?

Sure. But since oil is fungible, how can you reasonably do it?




Please rephrase the question. Based on the word "fungible", I'm not sure
what you're asking.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


My kid's 4 cylinder 1996 Camry wagon gets 35% better gas mileage than the
typical 6 or 8 cylinder SUV. How about offering the car makers some sort of
incentive for bringing back wagons? There *is* a demand for them. He's found
3 notes stuck under his windshield wiper from people wondering if he wanted
to sell the car. These vehicles satisfy one of the needs fulfilled by SUVs:
Carrying lots of stuff without crowding the passengers.

One of the many indications that the major law passed by Congress is
the Law of Unintended Consequences is the demise of the station wagon.
When they first issued the CAFE regs, they covered wagons as cars but
not vans and SUVs as trucks. The rest is history.


There are other ways to make a more significant improvement without any
change in vehicles. A substantial amount of our vehicle use is in
unnecessary commuting and solo commuting. The current fuel prices are
already improving the situation by triggering more carpooling and more
telecommuting.

There's a limit to how much of that can take place. Twice a week, I pass by
a park & ride lot. It's as empty as it's been for many years.

But that is as much of an indication of how we have failed to
develop anything at the other end. The demand for public transportation
options should grow if they would ever be available.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?

Sure. But since oil is fungible, how can you reasonably do it?

There are two different things going on here. One is the price of
oil the other who gets the money. We could reduce our dependence on
foreign by using our own energy sources. While that might or might not
make a big difference in prices at the pump, it would more likely starve
some of the nasties in the ME .

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
HeyBub wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Not to complicate the issue, but a number of arms control experts have
pointed out that there's only one way we'll stop "rogue states" from
eventually developing nuclear weapons: Eliminate civilian nuclear
power plants.

Every benefit comes with a hidden horror show.

Just shows you what pussies the so-called "arms control experts are."

Even I can think of a way to deal with "rogue states."

The whole attempt to link nuclear power and nuclear weapons is just a
scam from the paranoid and ignorant anti nuke groups. Nuclear power and
nuclear weapons have almost nothing to do with each other besides
"nuclear" in the name. Nonsense kind of like trying to link Nuclear
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (a.k.a. MRI) and nuclear weapons.


Wrong. All experts on the subject agree that civilian nuclear projects are a
potential source of dangerous material for the wrong kinds of people. The
issue becomes one of trust, and we know how far that goes. Physically
building the bomb itself isn't very complicated.

I'm not saying we should eliminate nuclear power generation, but if you
believe it's a good idea, then logically, you forfeit the right to act
surprised or annoyed when countries like Iran start rattling their swords.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:
I figured the city could carry my invention on their trucks and do away with
having to have four people standing around the holes holding shovels and
hoes in an upright position.

I'm sure it was union opposition that prevented me from getting a contract.

Probably. What's yellow and sleeps four?




A highway department truck..

willshak wrote:
on 12/24/2007 9:01 AM Pete C. said the following:
HeyBub wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:

Hi,
Nearby town of Banff installed LED street lights with solar panels.
Very cool looking light and it is cool running, no bugs get
attracted kep them clean. Cost a lot initially but for the long
run, it's winner. LED bulbs now are expensive but with time the
price will come down. I have a few small ones in the house, they
use couple Watts per bulb.

My city, Houston, is retrofitting its traffic signals with LEDs.
They cost more initially, but since the bulbs won't have to be
replaced for, what, fifty years, they should recoup the expense
fairly soon.

I doubt the 50 yr thing since I've see LED signals failing. The good
thing is that they have a "soft" failure mode, losing a few strings
of LEDs rather than the whole thing at once like the old incandescent
signals. The power savings of the LED vs. the 300W incandescents they
replace becomes significant when multiplied by all the active
signals in a city.


Can you imagine what it takes to change the bulb on an overhead
traffic signal?


About an hour, a bucket truck and a cop to handle traffic.


If you include the time it takes for the truck to get there, perhaps.
Most times, the changing of a traffic signal bulb takes about as much
time as a few regular cycles of the light.
Take it from someone who used to have to handle traffic while the
change was done.

Hmm. Say an ordinary bulb lasts four years. Each signal has four bulbs (two
red, one yellow, one green). On average, then, the signal itself requires
attention once per year. My city has over 2,000 signalized intersections
with at least 4 signals per intersection (sometimes, it seems, as many as
ten!). That's a minimum of 8,000 signals or 8,000 maintenance visits per
year.

Think of the savings if those 8,000 maintenance visits could be cut to, say,
twelve total. Shucks, a fella could have a good time in Vegas with the
savings.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 06:21:12 -0800, Dan_Musicant
wrote:

Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable
light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers.
I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in
the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please
doesn't
work in this country.

Do us all a favor and leave the United States of America. This
country will be a much better place after you leave. You don't
belong
here. You'd do much better in a country such as Iraq. Don't let
the
door slam you in the ass as you leave.

Daryl

Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?

It would certainly be a good goal, however it will not in any way solve
or reduce the problems that it helped to create. Indeed if we stop
buying oil from the ME it could make the situation there even worse.
Since China would likely buy whatever we don't that later issue may not
be as significant now.

OK. Now we're getting somewhere. What if a family of four can get a 35%
improvement in gas mileage by owning a certain vehicle, without losing
any
of the REAL (as opposed to imaginary) advantages of an SUV?

Not a valid option as there is no vehicle I'm aware of that gets 35%
better MPG than a typical SUV and still has the same real advantages of
the SUV.

My kid's 4 cylinder 1996 Camry wagon gets 35% better gas mileage than the
typical 6 or 8 cylinder SUV. How about offering the car makers some sort of
incentive for bringing back wagons? There *is* a demand for them. He's found
3 notes stuck under his windshield wiper from people wondering if he wanted
to sell the car. These vehicles satisfy one of the needs fulfilled by SUVs:
Carrying lots of stuff without crowding the passengers.

Mini vans do the job as well if you don't need off road capability or
much cargo weight capability. I seem to recall soccer moms in min vans
being regularly disparaged before those mini vans were replaced with
SUVs and they were in turn disparaged. Seems more like the people are
the ones that are disliked, and the vehicle is just a convenient PC
target.


Just because you don't believe someone else needs the
capabilities of an SUV does not in any way make those capabilities
imaginary.

The glut of SUVs in used car lots would seem to contradict how well they
fulfilled the needs of their prior owners.

An unsubstantiated assumption. The fact that a person traded in an SUV
neither tells us that it didn't fulfill their needs, nor does it tell us
they didn't trade it in for another SUV.

For instance, SUVs are *not*
better in winter weather for the vast majority of drivers who never go off
road.

Again false. SUVs are not better under any conditions for drivers who
lack driving skills, they are indeed better for those of us who do
posses driving skills and understand their capabilities, limitations and
how to handle them. The failings of our driver education and licensing
in the US is not the fault of the vehicle.

They're often sold with off-road tires that are hideous in snow.

I haven't seen many SUVs on dealer lots with actual off road tires, all
terrain seem the most common and do just fine in snow.

Safety in accidents? Not really.

Yes, really. The SUV detractors try to hype up rollover deaths, but the
reality is that there are far more accidents involving SUVs where the
occupants are uninjured and the vehicle does not roll.

Rollover accidents are more deadly than
other types.

And less frequent.

According to the NY State Police, they see more fatalities with
SUVs in highway accidents where another vehicle wasn't directly involved
with the impact. Why? Upside down in the median.

Again poor driver education and licensing is the problem, not the
vehicle. Note that most every commercial vehicle, from step vans to box
trucks to semis have much higher CGs than any SUV and yet there isn't a
plague of rollover accidents with them. The difference is entirely
driver education and licensing. Not to say that thos commercial vehicles
don't ever roll, just that it is quite infrequent relative to the number
of such vehicle miles.


Is a 35%
improvement not worth thinking about, especially if multiplied by the
number
of SUVs in this country?

There are other ways to make a more significant improvement without any
change in vehicles. A substantial amount of our vehicle use is in
unnecessary commuting and solo commuting. The current fuel prices are
already improving the situation by triggering more carpooling and more
telecommuting.

There's a limit to how much of that can take place. Twice a week, I pass by
a park & ride lot. It's as empty as it's been for many years.

An advertising campaign would help that. Remind people of the carpooling
and mass transit options while they are receptive due to the increased
fuel prices.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...


There's a limit to how much of that can take place. Twice a week, I pass
by
a park & ride lot. It's as empty as it's been for many years.

But that is as much of an indication of how we have failed to
develop anything at the other end. The demand for public transportation
options should grow if they would ever be available.


True. It also requires removing administrators who have no clue. Here, the
city still uses a hub & spoke system, where many buses come from the suburbs
to one place downtown, and some riders need to switch to a bus that takes
them out to another suburb where they actually work. Every now and then,
someone suggests running direct routes that mimic the heaviest car traffic,
since that's obviously where people are going. The response is usually
"duh...whuh? How do we know all those people would use the service?"

Doug Miller wrote:
Once again, Bush is taking away our freedoms as American citizens.
Next he's mandate we are only allowed to use one square of toilet
paper per day and will require we all spend our own money to buy
the toilet paper sheet counter. What makes this any different
from taking away our tv signal and forcing everyone on the country
to buy a converter. Of course the gov't dont tell us the whole
reason for this. That's because the cellphone companies paid the
gov't to steal our airwaves so they can make big profits from them.

1. The "one square of toilet paper" idea is being promoted by
Sheryl Crow, a Hollywood liberal.
2. The TV re-allocation was established in 1997, during the Clinton
administration.

3. The Democratic Congress passed the law.

Wrong. In 1997, the Senate had 55 to 45 Republican majority, and the
House had
a 227 to 204 Republican majority (with 4 seats vacant).



2.Kennedy and Johnson started and expanded the Viet Nam war. Nixon
ENDED the fighting and Henry Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize
for his efforts along those lines.
Which he shared with Arafat, thus once and for all killing off ANY
remaining legitimacy for the "Peace" Prize.

Wrong again. Kissinger shared the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize with Le Duc
Tho of
North Vietnam. Arafat's was 21 years later, shared with Shimon Peres
and
Yitzhak Rabin.

Wasn't that, let me think, during the CARTER administration?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
HeyBub wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Not to complicate the issue, but a number of arms control experts have
pointed out that there's only one way we'll stop "rogue states" from
eventually developing nuclear weapons: Eliminate civilian nuclear
power plants.

Every benefit comes with a hidden horror show.

Just shows you what pussies the so-called "arms control experts are."

Even I can think of a way to deal with "rogue states."

The whole attempt to link nuclear power and nuclear weapons is just a
scam from the paranoid and ignorant anti nuke groups. Nuclear power and
nuclear weapons have almost nothing to do with each other besides
"nuclear" in the name. Nonsense kind of like trying to link Nuclear
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (a.k.a. MRI) and nuclear weapons.

Wrong. All experts on the subject agree that civilian nuclear projects are a
potential source of dangerous material for the wrong kinds of people. The
issue becomes one of trust, and we know how far that goes. Physically
building the bomb itself isn't very complicated.

Again more hype. Power reactors don't produce material useful for bomb
making, and while conceptually building a bomb is simple, the devil is
in the details and building one that actually functions is very
difficult. The only potential from a power reactor is as a source of
material for a "dirty bomb" and those are very overhyped.


I'm not saying we should eliminate nuclear power generation, but if you
believe it's a good idea, then logically, you forfeit the right to act
surprised or annoyed when countries like Iran start rattling their swords.

I have no problem with Iran having power reactors, especially if they
keep them open to inspection by outside agencies, something they have no
reason not to do if they are only generating power. Heck they could put
up web cams in the plants so the whole world can watch and it would have
no effect on their ability to generate power.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?

Sure. But since oil is fungible, how can you reasonably do it?

There are two different things going on here. One is the price of
oil the other who gets the money. We could reduce our dependence on
foreign by using our own energy sources. While that might or might not
make a big difference in prices at the pump,


it would more likely starve
some of the nasties in the ME .

Like the Iraq sanctions Starved Saddam? The nasties never get starved,
entirely because they are the nasties and are perfectly happy to steal
the food from the mouths of children.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign
oil?

Sure. But since oil is fungible, how can you reasonably do it?




Please rephrase the question. Based on the word "fungible", I'm not
sure what you're asking.

Here's part of the economics of the problem as I see it. Let's hypothetically
assume that gas prices stabilize for the long term at 2.75/g which I think most
people would agree is more than reasonable to live with (thinking long term
now).

Given this hypothetical we can reduce the issue of lowering our dependence on
foreign oil to...

a) choosing something greener
b) not sending money to the middle east

Now let's hypothetically assume an alternative is discovered that is perfect
regarding points (a) and (b) but which costs 3.00/g. I think the vast majority
of people would be delighted to pay that difference (roughly 8%) to accomplish
the goals of (a) and (b).

Now of course this is so successful that the cost of foreign oil now drops to an
effective gasoline price of 2.00/g because we are no longer buying so much of
it. Now with a price difference of 50% you are going to lose a lot of
supporters to the alternative fuel. That is how commodity pricing works in
world markets. If you are a significant consumer of a commodity and you reduce
your usage then the price drops and there will be tremendous pressure as a
result of that drop for consumption to go back up.

The only way I see us reducing our foreign oil consumption is if an alternative
is found that is so dramatically cheaper than FO that it will still be cheaper
when the inevitable price drop in FO occurs.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:

Hi,
Also cars/trucks are now getting LED lights; tail lights, signal lights,
etc. They are 1/20 seconds faster turning on. This split second
difference could lessen traffic accident.

Another advantage is the fact that the LED life expectancy exceeds the
length of time the average person keeps a car, which helps insure they
are actually working since few people check their lights regularly.

I would be more impressed with that as a safety measure if it exceeded
the average life span of the car. All that means is that the guy who
buys it from me is more likely to have problems.

For most cars they will. Trucks typically have longer life spans so
perhaps not there.

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 06:21:12 -0800, Dan_Musicant

wrote:

Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable
light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all
are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for
5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal
lawmakers.
I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting
in
the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in
their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please
doesn't
work in this country.

Do us all a favor and leave the United States of America. This
country will be a much better place after you leave. You don't
belong
here. You'd do much better in a country such as Iraq. Don't let
the
door slam you in the ass as you leave.

Daryl

Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign
oil?

It would certainly be a good goal, however it will not in any way
solve
or reduce the problems that it helped to create. Indeed if we stop
buying oil from the ME it could make the situation there even worse.
Since China would likely buy whatever we don't that later issue may
not
be as significant now.

OK. Now we're getting somewhere. What if a family of four can get a
35%
improvement in gas mileage by owning a certain vehicle, without losing
any
of the REAL (as opposed to imaginary) advantages of an SUV?

Not a valid option as there is no vehicle I'm aware of that gets 35%
better MPG than a typical SUV and still has the same real advantages of
the SUV.

My kid's 4 cylinder 1996 Camry wagon gets 35% better gas mileage than the
typical 6 or 8 cylinder SUV. How about offering the car makers some sort
of
incentive for bringing back wagons? There *is* a demand for them. He's
found
3 notes stuck under his windshield wiper from people wondering if he
wanted
to sell the car. These vehicles satisfy one of the needs fulfilled by
SUVs:
Carrying lots of stuff without crowding the passengers.

Mini vans do the job as well if you don't need off road capability or
much cargo weight capability. I seem to recall soccer moms in min vans
being regularly disparaged before those mini vans were replaced with
SUVs and they were in turn disparaged. Seems more like the people are
the ones that are disliked, and the vehicle is just a convenient PC
target.


About a year ago, our county clerk was being interviewed on the radio and
she commented that NY State had 10 times more SUVs registered than 15 years
ago. Now, I don't know what comes to mind when you think of the words "off
road", but in this state, there simply aren't places where hoardes of people
are driving off road, unless you mean parking on the lawn once a year while
the driveway sealer soaks in for 48 hours. The state campgrounds don't allow
off road driving, and all access roads to the campsites are paved. So much
for campers. The state's not enlarging the parking lots at boat launches. So
much for more people towing things.

The state is bemoaning the fact that the number of registered hunters is
decreasing*. So much for the group that's most likely to drive off road to
get to remote hunting grounds. So, who's using 15x more off road vehicles?

* The concern is less people controlling the deer population, and decreased
tourism revenue for merchants patronized by hunters.




Just because you don't believe someone else needs the
capabilities of an SUV does not in any way make those capabilities
imaginary.

The glut of SUVs in used car lots would seem to contradict how well they
fulfilled the needs of their prior owners.

An unsubstantiated assumption. The fact that a person traded in an SUV
neither tells us that it didn't fulfill their needs, nor does it tell us
they didn't trade it in for another SUV.

For instance, SUVs are *not*
better in winter weather for the vast majority of drivers who never go
off
road.

Again false. SUVs are not better under any conditions for drivers who
lack driving skills, they are indeed better for those of us who do
posses driving skills and understand their capabilities, limitations and
how to handle them. The failings of our driver education and licensing
in the US is not the fault of the vehicle.


You'll never change the overall quality of drivers in this country. There's
no point in even discussing it. "The system" is not and never will be
equipped to do what needs to be done.

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:


Like the Iraq sanctions Starved Saddam? The nasties never get starved,
entirely because they are the nasties and are perfectly happy to steal
the food from the mouths of children.

That's because we aren't talking sanctions that can be gotten around.
We are talking finding other options and using them. Besides what the
nasties are might do has little or no imput on what WE should do.

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
HeyBub wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Not to complicate the issue, but a number of arms control experts
have
pointed out that there's only one way we'll stop "rogue states" from
eventually developing nuclear weapons: Eliminate civilian nuclear
power plants.

Every benefit comes with a hidden horror show.

Just shows you what pussies the so-called "arms control experts are."

Even I can think of a way to deal with "rogue states."

The whole attempt to link nuclear power and nuclear weapons is just a
scam from the paranoid and ignorant anti nuke groups. Nuclear power and
nuclear weapons have almost nothing to do with each other besides
"nuclear" in the name. Nonsense kind of like trying to link Nuclear
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (a.k.a. MRI) and nuclear weapons.

Wrong. All experts on the subject agree that civilian nuclear projects
are a
potential source of dangerous material for the wrong kinds of people. The
issue becomes one of trust, and we know how far that goes. Physically
building the bomb itself isn't very complicated.

Again more hype. Power reactors don't produce material useful for bomb
making, and while conceptually building a bomb is simple, the devil is
in the details and building one that actually functions is very
difficult. The only potential from a power reactor is as a source of
material for a "dirty bomb" and those are very overhyped.

According to ALL experts, power plant fuel *can* be refined for weapon use,
not just for dirty bombs. The problem with power plants in questionable
countries is that there is now fuel where there was none before, unless
illegally obtained.

"A close examination by the IAEA of the radioactive isotope content in the
nuclear waste revealed that North Korea had extracted about 24 kilograms of
Plutonium. North Korea was supposed to have produced 0.9 gram of Plutonium
per megawatt every day over a 4-year period from 1987 to 1991. The 0.9 gram
per day multiplied by 365 days by 4 years and by 30 megawatts equals to 39
kilograms. When the yearly operation ratio is presumed to be 60 percent, the
actual amount was estimated at 60% of 39 kilograms, or some 23.4 kilograms.
Since 20-kiloton standard nuclear warhead has 8 kilograms of critical mass,
this amounts to mass of material of nuclear fission out of which about 3
nuclear warheads could be extracted."

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:

Hi,
Also cars/trucks are now getting LED lights; tail lights, signal lights,
etc. They are 1/20 seconds faster turning on. This split second
difference could lessen traffic accident.

Another advantage is the fact that the LED life expectancy exceeds the
length of time the average person keeps a car, which helps insure they
are actually working since few people check their lights regularly.

I would be more impressed with that as a safety measure if it exceeded
the average life span of the car. All that means is that the guy who
buys it from me is more likely to have problems.

For most cars they will. Trucks typically have longer life spans so
perhaps not there.

Well the cool. (g).

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

Several thousands of people need several millions of acres and
can't spare a little land.

They've owned that land for thousands of years. What
right do you have to take it, or their resources, and
destroy their culture?

Which is pretty much what the Feds did when they made it a reserve.

That is an absolutely false statement. The Feds, by
making it a reserve, did *nothing* that impaired the
people who were then using the resources.

The feds own the land What gives them the right to decide to keep the
owners in poverty by not allowing them to develop their own land?. BTW:
did they actually own it.

They did actually own it, according to the US
Constitution and rulings from the US Supreme Court.
Congress in 1972 legislated a "settlement act" that paid
for that title, and transfered it legally to the US
Federal government. Moral or not is open to question,
but that is the legal history.

Making ANWR a wildlife refuge certainly doesn't keep
them in poverty either, and allowing ANWR to be
destroyed by oil exploration would not alleviate any
poverty there either. We do have a treaty with Canada
that *requires* that we protect the areas resources.

Suggesting otherwise is a bit of abject ignorance...

All told, the ANWR consists of 19 million acres. Congress has put 8
million acres into formal wilderness status and designated 9.5 million
acres as wildlife refuge. Those 17.5 million acres form a protected
enclave almost as large as the state of South Carolina.

Do you have a point?
Yep. That no one is discussing messing with this section here.

What point does that make?

As part of the original legislation, Congress set aside the remaining
1.5 million acres of the coastal plain for ***potential exploration***
and development because of its oil and gas. (emphasis mine). Before any
exploration could occur, additional legislation had to be passed by
Congress. That happened in 1995, but President Clinton vetoed the bill.

Hence, we have wisely refrained from destroying it.

Your take. So it MUST be true and the only way to go?

At least I do have some idea what the heck we are
talking about. You seem to be totally ignorant of the
entire subject.

Note that Congress did *not* set it aside for
exploration, potential or otherwise. Congress said that
option should be studied because there was a potential.
It has been studied, and rather obviously it has been
consistently determined to *not* be a suitable option, which
is why exploration has not passed into law.

They certainly did. Congress passed the law that said it was hokey
dokey to go ahead, it was Clinton unilaterally who said otherwise as a
sop to his base.

No they did *not*. Congress passes bills. It does not
just become a law because of that. The fact is that
that proposal did *not* become a law. That's the way
our government works.

Note that Congress could have, but did not, override the
veto. Note that Congress could have, but has never,
again passed such legislation while other Presidents
were in office.

Your point is exceedingly weak.

It is a little hard to make the case that areas that were initially
set-aside specifically for exploration could really have that much
impact.

That is an absurdly erroneous statement. As noted, it
was *not* set aside for exploration. And logically
there is no correlation between that and whether there
would or would not be an impact.

It was set aside for exploration by Congress. they looked at
it and the impact was such that they approved it.

First, Congress alone *cannot* set anything aside, for
exploration or otherwise. But regardless, what was done
did *not* set the 1002 Area aside for exploration. They
set it aside for study to determine if that was or was
not an appropriate use. Obviously, given the two major
studies that have been completed since then by the USGS
(1987 and 1998), the fact that no law has been passed to
authorize any such exploration should tell you
something.

A little history for you.

From: http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm#section1


In the 1950s, post-war construction and accelerating
resource development across Alaska raised concerns
about the potential loss of this region's special
natural values. In 1952-53, government scientists
conducted a comprehensive survey of potential
conservation areas in Alaska. Their report, "The Last
Great Wilderness," identified the undisturbed
northeast corner of Alaska as the best opportunity
for protection.

Two major consequences followed:

+ In 1957, Secretary of Interior Fred Seaton of the
Eisenhower Administration revoked the previous
military withdrawal on 20 million acres of the
North Slope of Alaska to make it available for
commercial oil and gas leasing. This was in
addition to the previously established 23 million
acre Naval Petroleum Reserve.

+ In 1960, Secretary Seaton designated 8.9 million
acres of coastal plain and mountains of northeast
Alaska as the Arctic National Wildlife Range to
protect its "unique wildlife, wilderness and
recreation values."

So we see that ANWR originated *specifically* as an area
for preservation as opposed to an area for oil
exploration. 43 million acres was designated for oil,
8.9 for conservation.

In 1980 the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
was passed. It added to the refuge, designating much
of it as wilderness, but did not make a decision on whether
the coastal plain should be wilderness or not, and instead
required further study of wildlife and other resources.

ANILCA, in Paragraph 1003, specifically says:

"production of oil and gas from the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge is prohibited and no leasing or other
development leading to production of oil and gas from
the [Refuge] shall be undertaken until authorized by
an act of Congress."

So your claims that some part of the refuge somehow has
legal status as a place for oil exploration is abjectly
ignorant of history.

As we know positively from the horrendous impact of oil
production in the Prudhoe Bay industrial complex, there
is no question at all that there is in fact that impact.
yeah right.

But the caribou herd that migrates through Prudhoe Bay has increased
from 3,000 to 23,000 since drilling commenced there in 1977.

Pure ignorance.

First, *every* credible caribou biologist that has done
field work on the North Slope says exploration in ANWR
should *not* be done. (Do a web search on the names
Whitten, Cameron, Griffith, and Nellemann.)

Second, your numbers are incorrect though that makes no
difference, because you are *not* citing the number of
those caribou that actually frequent the Prudhoe Bay
complex. The facts are that 1) drilling commenced there
long before 1977; 2) caribou studies began there in the
late 1960's; 3) in the 1960's virtually the entire
Central Arctic Caribou Herd, which then had about 5000
animals, was calving at what is now part of the Prudhoe
Bay complex; 4) today, even though the herd has peaked at
over 30,000 animals, there are actually significantly
*fewer* caribou using that area for any reason; 5)
calving caribou cows do not go near oil infrastructure;
6) the herd moved its calving activities to one of the
many others available to it; 7) that herd has a *huge*
range which is vastly far away from oil infrastructure.

In other words, you are counting caribou that are 200
miles from the oil fields and saying that means they are
not bothered by those oil fields, even though virtually
none of them will now calve where they used to because
of the oil development.

If you want counts of caribou that actually do frequent
the oil production area:

Conservative calculations yielded an estimated 78% decrease in
use by caribou and a 90% decrease in their lateral movements
(Cameron et al. 1995), all changes apparently in response to
intensive development of the Prudhoe Bay to Kuparuk oil field
region over the past 3 decades.
RD Cameron, WT Smith, RG White, and B Griffith
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section4part1.htm


Opponents of drilling cannot point to a single species that has been
driven to extinction or even a population decline attributable to
Prudhoe Bay.

Extinction, no; for population decline see above.

Another wildlife refuge in Alaska, the Kenai National
Wildlife Refuge, has had drilling onsite for decades.

That is not hardly Arctic tundra, nor are there
significant numbers of caribou there. Which is to say
that comparing that apple to an orange doesn't tell us
anything at all about this orange.

The oil production
there rarely makes the news because it has not caused any problems, even
though Kenai has far more wildlife than ANWR.

Another false statement. If has less wildlife
diversity, is not particularly unique, and does have
problems.

Oh, the humanity!!!!
These figures BTW are from Alaska's government figures.

You gave no accurate figures. Don't try to bull**** me
about sources either. What I cited for you above are
*the* people who did the research and wrote the reports
(for the State of Alaska). They don't agree with you on
either the specifics or on the significance.

You should try it sometime.

You did not even want to question the facts as I stated
them, but went of with false statements and illogical
philosophy.

First of all the original post was fact free, just statements about

False statements. Fact free is true.

how it should not have been done. It studiously ignored the fact that
the area in question was put aside for drilling SUBJECT to CONGRESSIONAL
APPROVAL which was given, but then a single man, Mr. C, stopped the

No, NOT subject to congressional approval. Subject to
law, and no such law has ever come to be.

Congressional approval. Also there is little indication of "horrendous
impact" on Prudhoe Bay,

If that is so true, why was BP again fined millions of
dollars just the other day for illegal pollution?

Why does *every* biologist of any credibility at all say
we should not drill in ANWR?

Why is Prudhoe Bay a SuperFund site?

another fact free zone since you did not deem
fit to actually apply a fact or two.

Oh really...

Do you actually know *anything* about ANWR?
Seems more than you do.

Oh, when is that going to be demonstrated?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Rick Brandt" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign
oil?

Sure. But since oil is fungible, how can you reasonably do it?




Please rephrase the question. Based on the word "fungible", I'm not
sure what you're asking.

Here's part of the economics of the problem as I see it. Let's
hypothetically assume that gas prices stabilize for the long term at
2.75/g which I think most people would agree is more than reasonable to
live with (thinking long term now).

Given this hypothetical we can reduce the issue of lowering our dependence
on foreign oil to...

a) choosing something greener
b) not sending money to the middle east

Now let's hypothetically assume an alternative is discovered that is
perfect regarding points (a) and (b) but which costs 3.00/g. I think the
vast majority of people would be delighted to pay that difference (roughly
8%) to accomplish the goals of (a) and (b).

Now of course this is so successful that the cost of foreign oil now drops
to an effective gasoline price of 2.00/g because we are no longer buying
so much of it. Now with a price difference of 50% you are going to lose a
lot of supporters to the alternative fuel. That is how commodity pricing
works in world markets. If you are a significant consumer of a commodity
and you reduce your usage then the price drops and there will be
tremendous pressure as a result of that drop for consumption to go back
up.

The only way I see us reducing our foreign oil consumption is if an
alternative is found that is so dramatically cheaper than FO that it will
still be cheaper when the inevitable price drop in FO occurs.


We could also reduce the price by eliminating speculators who are not
directly connected with the oil business. There's no sane reason for players
to be fiddling with the price of a commodity that's so important to the
country. Let the oil companies hedge. Keep mutual fund managers out of the
game. Too much emotion (and bull****) involved.

Having said this, I'm not convinced that lowering the price would cause the
whole country to double the miles driven. For some, yes. Not for everyone.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 06:21:12 -0800, Dan_Musicant

wrote:

Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable
light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all
are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for
5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal
lawmakers.
I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting
in
the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in
their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please
doesn't
work in this country.

Do us all a favor and leave the United States of America. This
country will be a much better place after you leave. You don't
belong
here. You'd do much better in a country such as Iraq. Don't let
the
door slam you in the ass as you leave.

Daryl

Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign
oil?

It would certainly be a good goal, however it will not in any way
solve
or reduce the problems that it helped to create. Indeed if we stop
buying oil from the ME it could make the situation there even worse.
Since China would likely buy whatever we don't that later issue may
not
be as significant now.

OK. Now we're getting somewhere. What if a family of four can get a
35%
improvement in gas mileage by owning a certain vehicle, without losing
any
of the REAL (as opposed to imaginary) advantages of an SUV?

Not a valid option as there is no vehicle I'm aware of that gets 35%
better MPG than a typical SUV and still has the same real advantages of
the SUV.

My kid's 4 cylinder 1996 Camry wagon gets 35% better gas mileage than the
typical 6 or 8 cylinder SUV. How about offering the car makers some sort
of
incentive for bringing back wagons? There *is* a demand for them. He's
found
3 notes stuck under his windshield wiper from people wondering if he
wanted
to sell the car. These vehicles satisfy one of the needs fulfilled by
SUVs:
Carrying lots of stuff without crowding the passengers.

Mini vans do the job as well if you don't need off road capability or
much cargo weight capability. I seem to recall soccer moms in min vans
being regularly disparaged before those mini vans were replaced with
SUVs and they were in turn disparaged. Seems more like the people are
the ones that are disliked, and the vehicle is just a convenient PC
target.

About a year ago, our county clerk was being interviewed on the radio and
she commented that NY State had 10 times more SUVs registered than 15 years
ago. Now, I don't know what comes to mind when you think of the words "off
road", but in this state, there simply aren't places where hoardes of people
are driving off road, unless you mean parking on the lawn once a year while
the driveway sealer soaks in for 48 hours. The state campgrounds don't allow
off road driving, and all access roads to the campsites are paved. So much
for campers. The state's not enlarging the parking lots at boat launches. So
much for more people towing things.

The state is bemoaning the fact that the number of registered hunters is
decreasing*. So much for the group that's most likely to drive off road to
get to remote hunting grounds. So, who's using 15x more off road vehicles?

* The concern is less people controlling the deer population, and decreased
tourism revenue for merchants patronized by hunters.

Ever consider the fact that people may travel out of state with their
SUVs?


Just because you don't believe someone else needs the
capabilities of an SUV does not in any way make those capabilities
imaginary.

The glut of SUVs in used car lots would seem to contradict how well they
fulfilled the needs of their prior owners.

An unsubstantiated assumption. The fact that a person traded in an SUV
neither tells us that it didn't fulfill their needs, nor does it tell us
they didn't trade it in for another SUV.

For instance, SUVs are *not*
better in winter weather for the vast majority of drivers who never go
off
road.

Again false. SUVs are not better under any conditions for drivers who
lack driving skills, they are indeed better for those of us who do
posses driving skills and understand their capabilities, limitations and
how to handle them. The failings of our driver education and licensing
in the US is not the fault of the vehicle.

You'll never change the overall quality of drivers in this country. There's
no point in even discussing it. "The system" is not and never will be
equipped to do what needs to be done.

Probably true, but not an excuse for blaming the vehicle for the
driver's failings.

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?

Sure. But since oil is fungible, how can you reasonably do it?

There are two different things going on here. One is the price of
oil the other who gets the money. We could reduce our dependence on
foreign by using our own energy sources. While that might or might not
make a big difference in prices at the pump,


it would more likely starve
some of the nasties in the ME .

Like the Iraq sanctions Starved Saddam? The nasties never get starved,
entirely because they are the nasties and are perfectly happy to steal
the food from the mouths of children.


That's different. We're talking about a business model that changes. If the
business (Saudi Arabia) can't adapt to something like any other business,
then their business suffers. In the case of the Saudi royals, the result
would actually be horrible. They'd have to cut back on their lavish spending
for yachts, villas in Europe, and large contributions to such things as
presidential libraries.

You might enjoy reading "Sleeping With The Devil", by Robert Baer.

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 06:21:12 -0800, Dan_Musicant

wrote:

Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get
usable
light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at
all
are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on
for
5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal
lawmakers.
I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year
sitting
in
the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in
their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well
please
doesn't
work in this country.

Do us all a favor and leave the United States of America.
This
country will be a much better place after you leave. You
don't
belong
here. You'd do much better in a country such as Iraq. Don't
let
the
door slam you in the ass as you leave.

Daryl

Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign
oil?

It would certainly be a good goal, however it will not in any way
solve
or reduce the problems that it helped to create. Indeed if we
stop
buying oil from the ME it could make the situation there even
worse.
Since China would likely buy whatever we don't that later issue
may
not
be as significant now.

OK. Now we're getting somewhere. What if a family of four can get a
35%
improvement in gas mileage by owning a certain vehicle, without
losing
any
of the REAL (as opposed to imaginary) advantages of an SUV?

Not a valid option as there is no vehicle I'm aware of that gets 35%
better MPG than a typical SUV and still has the same real advantages
of
the SUV.

My kid's 4 cylinder 1996 Camry wagon gets 35% better gas mileage than
the
typical 6 or 8 cylinder SUV. How about offering the car makers some
sort
of
incentive for bringing back wagons? There *is* a demand for them. He's
found
3 notes stuck under his windshield wiper from people wondering if he
wanted
to sell the car. These vehicles satisfy one of the needs fulfilled by
SUVs:
Carrying lots of stuff without crowding the passengers.

Mini vans do the job as well if you don't need off road capability or
much cargo weight capability. I seem to recall soccer moms in min vans
being regularly disparaged before those mini vans were replaced with
SUVs and they were in turn disparaged. Seems more like the people are
the ones that are disliked, and the vehicle is just a convenient PC
target.

About a year ago, our county clerk was being interviewed on the radio and
she commented that NY State had 10 times more SUVs registered than 15
years
ago. Now, I don't know what comes to mind when you think of the words
"off
road", but in this state, there simply aren't places where hoardes of
people
are driving off road, unless you mean parking on the lawn once a year
while
the driveway sealer soaks in for 48 hours. The state campgrounds don't
allow
off road driving, and all access roads to the campsites are paved. So
much
for campers. The state's not enlarging the parking lots at boat launches.
So
much for more people towing things.

The state is bemoaning the fact that the number of registered hunters is
decreasing*. So much for the group that's most likely to drive off road
to
get to remote hunting grounds. So, who's using 15x more off road
vehicles?

* The concern is less people controlling the deer population, and
decreased
tourism revenue for merchants patronized by hunters.

Ever consider the fact that people may travel out of state with their
SUVs?


Not 15X more people. Sorry. I can't prove it one way or the other, and
neither can you, but based on the pristine condition of most of the SUVs I
see, they're not being used off road anywhere.



Just because you don't believe someone else needs the
capabilities of an SUV does not in any way make those capabilities
imaginary.

The glut of SUVs in used car lots would seem to contradict how well
they
fulfilled the needs of their prior owners.

An unsubstantiated assumption. The fact that a person traded in an SUV
neither tells us that it didn't fulfill their needs, nor does it tell
us
they didn't trade it in for another SUV.

For instance, SUVs are *not*
better in winter weather for the vast majority of drivers who never go
off
road.

Again false. SUVs are not better under any conditions for drivers who
lack driving skills, they are indeed better for those of us who do
posses driving skills and understand their capabilities, limitations
and
how to handle them. The failings of our driver education and licensing
in the US is not the fault of the vehicle.

You'll never change the overall quality of drivers in this country.
There's
no point in even discussing it. "The system" is not and never will be
equipped to do what needs to be done.

Probably true, but not an excuse for blaming the vehicle for the
driver's failings.


If that was logical, than we could all use slicks on our cars.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?

Sure. But since oil is fungible, how can you reasonably do it?

There are two different things going on here. One is the price of
oil the other who gets the money. We could reduce our dependence on
foreign by using our own energy sources. While that might or might not
make a big difference in prices at the pump,


it would more likely starve
some of the nasties in the ME .

Like the Iraq sanctions Starved Saddam? The nasties never get starved,
entirely because they are the nasties and are perfectly happy to steal
the food from the mouths of children.

That's different. We're talking about a business model that changes. If the
business (Saudi Arabia) can't adapt to something like any other business,
then their business suffers. In the case of the Saudi royals, the result
would actually be horrible. They'd have to cut back on their lavish spending
for yachts, villas in Europe, and large contributions to such things as
presidential libraries.

You might enjoy reading "Sleeping With The Devil", by Robert Baer.

They would actually just sell to China instead.

on 12/24/2007 11:35 AM HeyBub said the following:
willshak wrote:

on 12/24/2007 9:01 AM Pete C. said the following:

HeyBub wrote:


Tony Hwang wrote:


Hi,
Nearby town of Banff installed LED street lights with solar panels.
Very cool looking light and it is cool running, no bugs get
attracted kep them clean. Cost a lot initially but for the long
run, it's winner. LED bulbs now are expensive but with time the
price will come down. I have a few small ones in the house, they
use couple Watts per bulb.


My city, Houston, is retrofitting its traffic signals with LEDs.
They cost more initially, but since the bulbs won't have to be
replaced for, what, fifty years, they should recoup the expense
fairly soon.

I doubt the 50 yr thing since I've see LED signals failing. The good
thing is that they have a "soft" failure mode, losing a few strings
of LEDs rather than the whole thing at once like the old incandescent
signals. The power savings of the LED vs. the 300W incandescents they
replace becomes significant when multiplied by all the active
signals in a city.



Can you imagine what it takes to change the bulb on an overhead
traffic signal?


About an hour, a bucket truck and a cop to handle traffic.


If you include the time it takes for the truck to get there, perhaps.
Most times, the changing of a traffic signal bulb takes about as much
time as a few regular cycles of the light.
Take it from someone who used to have to handle traffic while the
change was done.


Hmm. Say an ordinary bulb lasts four years. Each signal has four bulbs (two
red, one yellow, one green). On average, then, the signal itself requires
attention once per year. My city has over 2,000 signalized intersections
with at least 4 signals per intersection (sometimes, it seems, as many as
ten!). That's a minimum of 8,000 signals or 8,000 maintenance visits per
year.

Think of the savings if those 8,000 maintenance visits could be cut to, say,
twelve total. Shucks, a fella could have a good time in Vegas with the
savings.

Yeah, your municipal taxes would go way down because of the savings in
labor and materials. You might even be able to save enough to pay for
the postage on a letter to Las Vegas.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign
oil?

Sure. But since oil is fungible, how can you reasonably do it?

There are two different things going on here. One is the price of
oil the other who gets the money. We could reduce our dependence on
foreign by using our own energy sources. While that might or might not
make a big difference in prices at the pump,


it would more likely starve
some of the nasties in the ME .

Like the Iraq sanctions Starved Saddam? The nasties never get starved,
entirely because they are the nasties and are perfectly happy to steal
the food from the mouths of children.

That's different. We're talking about a business model that changes. If
the
business (Saudi Arabia) can't adapt to something like any other business,
then their business suffers. In the case of the Saudi royals, the result
would actually be horrible. They'd have to cut back on their lavish
spending
for yachts, villas in Europe, and large contributions to such things as
presidential libraries.

You might enjoy reading "Sleeping With The Devil", by Robert Baer.

They would actually just sell to China instead.


I keep hearing that. Do you think the Chinese come looking for oil, and the
Saudis tell them "Sorry - we have none for you. We're selling it to
America"? Maybe that's the case, but I don't recall having read it
anywhere.