rideside.net

Posted by cdubrocker on 2005-08-24 21:48:59 +0000

The hybrid is catching on slowly but surely, but conservation (at least in the US) usually comes about only when there's a palpable shortage of something, such as water during a drought or oil during an embargo, when the gov't has to ration what little supplies are available. You hear a lot of talk about "peak oil," but until prices get super outrageously high, you'll still hear lots of talk about conservation but not much action, except when it's necessary with individuals and families, which could eventually lead to a more broadbased movement.

Was there any provision in the energy bill for researching alternative sources for energy? There's always talk about alternatives, but never much action in finding any. The nuclear fusion plant in France sounds like a good start. I'm not convinced that anything substantial in that department will happen in the US until rising oil and natural gas prices start chipping away more at the finances of the fairly well-off.

Conservation and efficiency are really great ideas, but ultimately some other energy source needs to be found. The ways of the uberconsumer affects everyone, and makes conservation and efficiency that much more necessary for many of us. Enough of these closed door energy meetings, which I can only assume are held to facilitate the entrenchment of the oil industry in our society, and to find new and interesting ways to price-gouge the crap out of us all.

As an aside, I've about had it with the secrecy and stonewalling of this administration. These folks have gotten more mileage out of Executive Privilege...and now with Roberts it's Attorney-Client Privilege...these folks keep so many things secret, it's asinine.

Posted by rladew on 2005-08-25 12:56:25 +0000

My wife wants a Prius because it's a "Larry David" mobile... Chortle.
_______________________________

Posted by rladew on 2005-08-25 13:18:53 +0000

(Said as if lighting the fuse of a big bomb and then scurrying out of the way): Any opinions on <a href="http://www.anwr.org/">ANWR</a> by the way?
_______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-25 13:46:35 +0000

I think we've had this discussion before. ANWR's possible 16 billion barrells would be consumed within 785 days at current rates. I don't see the benefit.

"The United States consumed an average of about 20.4 million bbl/d of oil during the first ten months of 2004, up from 20.0 million bbl/d in 2003." (<a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html">source</a>)

(Love the source of anwr.org, by the way: <a href="http://www.anwr.org/power.htm">Arctic Power</a>. Who said truth in advertising is a lost art?)

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-25 13:47:10 +0000

Stayed up way too late watching the second disc of the second season.

Posted by rladew on 2005-08-25 14:10:33 +0000

We did have this discussion before, but for the benefit of our new member (and my own curiosity) I was hoping to get another viewpoint...
_______________________________

Posted by rladew on 2005-08-25 14:11:32 +0000

tell me when you see the "Chinese Shrimp" episode...
_______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-25 14:47:37 +0000

There were only three shrimp!

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-25 14:57:08 +0000

Just another dupe post? ;)

ANWR.org is killer though... the Caribou CON? Wow.

Posted by rladew on 2005-08-25 15:01:19 +0000

Instead of WWJD, we now have WWLDD (What Would Larry David DO?)
_______________________________

Posted by cdubrocker on 2005-08-25 15:41:09 +0000

It is nice to get those numbers. I've been wondering exactly how long those ANWR fields would last. If that's all that's there, what's the point in doing it? Why are they pushing it? Jobs for Alaskans? Because they can?

Posted by frame609 on 2005-08-25 16:43:53 +0000

The shrimp episode was great.

Posted by rladew on 2005-08-25 16:49:04 +0000

ayuh.
_______________________________

Posted by rladew on 2005-08-25 16:49:23 +0000

ayuh.
_______________________________

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-08-25 17:30:47 +0000

I suppose I'm all for technology and the hybrid, but after an interesting discussion w/ Eliza's father, I'm not so sure. While hybrid cars are fantastic, getting upwards of 50 mpg, the hybrid SUV is a patch masking the problem. Smaller, safer cars are they way to go, if we don't want to fund terrorists in Iran and Saudi Arabia, not drilling in my Wildlife Refuge. Smaller hybrid cars are even better...

This is a new angle for me, and I'm not sure what to think. Still working on my opinion.

Great post with ANWR.org, rladew. I didn't know they were part of Arctic Power.

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-25 17:52:59 +0000

<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=arctic%20national%20wildlife%20refuge">Googe this</a>, the so-called grassroots campaign funded by industry is the second listing! Which reminds me of a bit I read the other day: Google is the new Microsoft.

---

I'm ready for biodiesel. I'll up my consumption of fried foods if I have to.

Seriously though, (I'm half-serious about biodesiel), conservation of energy is what's needed. At the rate we're going, we're going to get to the end of the rope a lot sooner than later. Alternate fuels are nice, hydrogen fuel cells too, but those things are years and years away. Especially fuel cells, there is another 50 years of development left to do, plus you have to _generate_ all that hydrogen. It actually takes a significant amount of energy to create the hydrogen to power a fuel cell car. The ratio is currently daunting.

---

Stick your pipe... right... here!

<img src="http://arctic.fws.gov/images/arctic.gif">

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-08-25 18:13:08 +0000

"Years away" from fuel cells? <a href="http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=6&article_id=1336&page_number=1">Are your sure?</a>

Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-08-25 18:16:19 +0000

I have friends in Lee, NH who make biodiesel & sell it.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-08-25 18:21:55 +0000

<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/24/D8C6HRS80.html">Speaking of fuel consumption...</a>

Imagine if we had leadership in the conservation movement?

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-25 18:24:22 +0000

Yeah, I'm sure. From the article:

"During the System Check, the shift lever is locked in P, but after about 20 seconds I was able to get underway. For the first minute or so of operation, you get a Reduced Power message. After that, acceleration is pretty brisk up to about 25 mph. Progress from 70 to 80 is glacial, although once there it cruises just fine."

.
.
.

Why the drop? Because when this multi-million-dollar prototype arrived, we initially drove it with a figurative egg on the gas pedal.

-----

Yes, there are fuel cells available now for commercial purposes (home power generation to name one). But, a multi-million dollar prototype with absolutely no available support infrastructure is not going to morph into an affordable vehicle, that can be started and driven up to 70 mph quickly, in any reasonably short timeframe.

Let's use the delivery methods and support systems already in place. Storing flammable liquids is something we've got a reasonable handle on. Generating hyrdogen and delivering it to consumers is a very difficult problem.

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-25 18:30:15 +0000

Heard about <a href="http://www.greaseworks.org/index.php">these</a> guys on NPR a while back.

There is also a group here in Massachusetts that sells a mini "refinery" for biodiesel that you can setup in your garage. Forget the name...

Posted by rladew on 2005-08-25 18:44:21 +0000

So much for hearing more of a new persons perspective, sigh. Oh well. "Be careful of what you wish for..."
_______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-25 19:42:15 +0000

If you indeed wished for new person's perspective, you got it. Sure you weren't really after a different perspective from a new person? ;)

Posted by rladew on 2005-08-25 19:44:51 +0000

could be, could be...
_______________________________

Posted by cdubrocker on 2005-08-25 21:09:50 +0000

I'd say the ANWR is mostly a public relations/political ploy. "Look, we really can do something about our excessive dependence on foreign oil." Not with 2+ years worth of oil, that's just a futile stopgap measure! Ultimately, a lot of these folks don't really care what happens to the remote nature spots in the US, as long as they're a place that most people will never visit or see, like the ANWR. The very existence of these relatively undisturbed spots is so important, and it's too bad the pro-drilling folks in business and gov't aren't in tune with that fact.

Posted by G lib on 2005-08-25 23:17:35 +0000

Anyone want to talk to "Henry," our solar guy?
________________
<i>--Feminazi </i>

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-26 03:20:08 +0000

Caught some of <a href="http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2005/08/20050825_b_main.asp">this</a> on the radio today.

---

db, you still in at <a href="http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=nN24637460&imageid=&cap=">Ford</a>?

Posted by cdubrocker on 2005-08-26 04:24:37 +0000

More <a href = "http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7549534/">reading</a> on the future of biodiesel.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-08-26 16:18:24 +0000

Still own some Ford stock, though less than 10% of my stock value, and less than 2% of my portfolio. Not really sweating it, yet wouldn't like to see it collapse, ala Enron... "Junk-rated credit" status hurts.

"Ford and General Motors are among the biggest issuers of debt in the United States, with well over $400 billion of combined debt as of June 30."
Wow, that's about 6% of the US Debt. (I know not related, just saying.)