Wilsons Sandbox

Posted: **Sat May 13, 2006 6:47 am**

For whatever reason, my wife started talking about trading her '98 VW Jetta 5 sp or my '98 Saturn 5 sp in for a Prius. I looked at the mpg experiences others were having versus the 34-40 mpg I get on the Saturn and none of it made economic sense. I think conservation in one form or another is the most immediate way to spend less at the pump. I'm a "techno weenie", an outdoor / nature guy and the Prius is a technological wonder out of the pages of Popular Science but when you truthfully consider the initial price, the real gas mileage - not EPA, and you look at those differences versus existing high mpg alternatives, like used VWs, Saturns, etc. There's no economic or environmental justification other than pilling-on to a new fad. That whole high-voltage electric system is scary and way costly to fix / replace. I think Hydrogen and Alcohol cars are a joke too since production of those fuels will take way more energy to produce than today's conventional fuels. If you strip away the tax breaks, gov't subsidies (your and my tax dollars), etc. hybrids, like the early '80s boom in electricity generating windmills can't stand on their own. The price of all fuels will continue to increase and that will spur inovation and the adoption of these technologies. I can see that we (personally, businesses, gov't, the world) are going to experience "energy consumption behavior modification" big time in the near future. Don, R100, A6F

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "kaloonak" wrote: > > On May 12, 2006, at 10:39 AM, Bogdan Swider wrote: > > For many of you > > however - Cal Stu, Jud and Ron C to name a few - the over ridding > > concern is > > the planet. > > I guess I feel hybrid cars are a bit of an eco-scam. The enviro costs > of production and the energy consumed in earning $30k to purchase them > and then the environmental cost of disposing of that car all combine > to make them pretty much eco-nonsense. I feel this way even though I > probably am what most people would call a greeny too.... In terms of > reduce/re-use/recycle one must remember that reduction of use is the > largest gain. > > Jim >

Posted: **Sat May 13, 2006 12:04 pm**

On May 13, 2006, at 4:47 AM, Spike55 wrote:

> I think Hydrogen and Alcohol cars are a joke too since production of > those fuels will take way more energy to produce than today's > conventional fuels.

I sat on an airplane next to an investment banker a few months ago and had a brief but fascinating conversation with him. This was around the time one of the founders of Greenpeace had publicly started talking up nuclear power http://washingtontimes.com/national/ 20060424-104215-7645r.htm>. His contention was that we *had* to start building more nuclear power plants because it was the only way for us to get to a hydrogen economy. You see, nuclear plants generate the same amount of electricity day and night, unlike fossil fuel plants that throttle back during the evening/low demand periods. So, what do you do with a bunch of extra energy you have at night? Use it to create hydrogen. Sure, it's not an efficient process, but it's using energy that would otherwise go unused and be wasted so the inefficiency is no big deal. His contention was that this hydrogen production was the way to break the chicken-and-egg problem of switching to hydrogen power. I'm thinking I should have gotten his card and given him some money to invest for me.

-- Blake Sobiloff http://sobiloff.typepad.com/> San Jose, CA (USA)

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2006 9:56 am**

I was over in France a few years ago and they run most power plants (80 percent I think) on nuclear. Uh .... they also have a sizable population of disgruntled Muslims and Allah forbid if militants ever figure a way to blow up a power plant. Bad day for wine production. They also run about 80 per cent of the cars are diesel. A low sulfur cleaner burning diesel. Something the US should certainly consider. But I also heard from a retired oil driller that says the US is the Saudi of coal. We have a bunch. We can convert that into fuel. The air force is already looking into that I read this morning in the paper. If ........... Greenpeace and the tree huggers are so nice enough to let us retrieve it. Criswell

On May 13, 2006, at 12:04 PM, Blake Sobiloff wrote: > On May 13, 2006, at 4:47 AM, Spike55 wrote: >> I think Hydrogen and Alcohol cars are a joke too since production of >> those fuels will take way more energy to produce than today's >> conventional fuels. > > I sat on an airplane next to an investment banker a few months ago > and had a brief but fascinating conversation with him. This was > around the time one of the founders of Greenpeace had publicly > started talking up nuclear power http://washingtontimes.com/national/ > 20060424-104215-7645r.htm>. > > His contention was that we *had* to start building more nuclear power > plants because it was the only way for us to get to a hydrogen > economy. You see, nuclear plants generate the same amount of > electricity day and night, unlike fossil fuel plants that throttle > back during the evening/low demand periods. So, what do you do with a > bunch of extra energy you have at night? Use it to create hydrogen. > Sure, it's not an efficient process, but it's using energy that would > otherwise go unused and be wasted so the inefficiency is no big deal. > > His contention was that this hydrogen production was the way to break > the chicken-and-egg problem of switching to hydrogen power. > > I'm thinking I should have gotten his card and given him some money > to invest for me. > -- > Blake Sobiloff > > > >

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2006 10:27 am**

On May 14, 2006, at 7:55 AM, Ronald Criswell wrote:

> They also run about 80 per cent of the cars are diesel. A low > sulfur cleaner burning diesel. Something the US should certainly > consider.

Already done--the EPA mandated the Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) be phased into production this year. ULSD allows for 15 ppm of sulfur, versus the 500 ppm in the current ("low sulfur") product. According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-low_sulfur_diesel>, California will see ULSD at the pump by September 1, while the rest of the nation will get it by October 15. This will give the US the same low-sulfur diesel that Europe uses. The sulfur is what causes most of the diesel emissions nastiness. I can't wait to see what diesels the automakers start bringing to the US market. Over in Europe, most of the new cars are diesels and they're clean, quiet, fuel efficient and powerful. I'd love to have a small sedan with a good diesel engine in it. They're so much nicer to drive than the typical anemic gasoline-powered four-cylinder hooked up to a slushbox. -- Blake Sobiloff http://sobiloff.typepad.com/> San Jose, CA (USA)

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2006 11:14 am**

Have you heard of 'mountaintop removal'? Efficient, but let me assure you that 'tree huggers' aren't the only ones opposed to a ramping up of coal mining. --John Kokola Ronald Criswell wrote:

>If ........... Greenpeace and the tree huggers are so nice >enough to let us retrieve it. >

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2006 12:11 pm**

Canada leads the way with oil. I heard that Canada has known reserves larger than Saudi Arabia. The problem is the oil is mixed with sand, and it is expensive to separate the oil from the sand. At some point when world oil prices reach some level, it will make sense for Canada to start producing. Jeff A20 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2006 2:49 pm**

Nuclear. Wind. Solar. Higher CAFE standards. Better mass-transit systems in urban areas. Smaller cars on the road. Houses that are built more tightly and for greater efficiency ... with SIPs and ICFs, for example. Heating with wood (outside of urban areas), in an efficient, EPA-regulated stove. I definitely agree with you on self-sufficiency, but I don't think that we should continually be looking for more fossil fuel resources, especially *without changing how we use them.* There are smarter, cleaner ways around our energy problems. I'm not looking to argue, I'm just saying that there are better resources available to us than coal. --John Kokola Ronald Criswell wrote:

> And your suggestion is ............. for fueling America? We have a > shit load of wilderness in this country. I am not for ruining the > land but surely there is a happy medium. We could go back to the > horse I suppose but then someone would complain about the methane gas > released into the atmosphere. Still a good deal of oil and gas left > here ..... but you can't drill offshore in California, Florida, the > rest of the North slope etc. I have been to Alaska and it is all > wilderness and would want to keep most of it that way, but I also > don't want to make Chavez, the Saudis, Iran etc. richer than they > are. Energy self sufficiency should be the number one issue to me in > the country.

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2006 6:11 pm**

The tar-sand/oil-sand site is in the province of Alberta and has been producing oil probably for thirty years or more. Depending on complexity of accessing/processing the oil from the sand deposits, costs of the product fluctuates. As in any other resource based industry, as the readily available reserves are consumed, additional effort/expense is a natural part of the process to access more resources. When imported oil achieves a certain price level, oil from the tar-sand deposits becomes more attractive due to the equalization of cost. It will be interesting to see how the oil companies will manipulate the price of oil once the tar-sand project becomes North America's main supply. jokerloco9@... wrote: Canada leads the way with oil. I heard that Canada has known reserves larger than Saudi Arabia. The problem is the oil is mixed with sand, and it is expensive to separate the oil from the sand. At some point when world oil prices reach some level, it will make sense for Canada to start producing. Jeff A20 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Archive Quicksearch at: http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html Member Map at: http://www.frappr.com/dsnklr650 Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Posted: **Mon May 15, 2006 7:01 am**

I agree with John on this - rabid coal extraction without regard for the environment ain't the answer. Having spent many years visiting relatives in Pennsylvania's hard coal region, I saw the ravages of acid mine drainage on the dead creeks and streams and the Centralia underground mine fire that has / is destorying homes, forest, streams, the air. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Every type of energy (extraction, production, transmission, use) has consequencies (called externalities in the business). Blake's investment banker is half- right (an engineering answer) that nuke plants are "base-load" and their output doesn't fluctuate much versus fossil fuel plants, therefore their electricity is free at night when there is less demand by you and me. Where these are built, what market they supply, who is going to foot the bill (taxpayers and ratepayers are paying off all of the nuke plant's costs - it ain't free), the behavioral changes of big end-users to go after the cheap power at night, etc. etc. will change that "free" power into a valuable commodity again. This cycle is just like building a new express highway that eventually ends up clogged with traffic - a supply-side only solution. We are going to have to get smarter about it and attack the problem at both ends, supply "and" demand. Don, R100, A6F --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Ronald Criswell wrote:

> > I was over in France a few years ago and they run most power

plants

> (80 percent I think) on nuclear. Uh .... they also have a sizable > population of disgruntled Muslims and Allah forbid if militants

ever

> figure a way to blow up a power plant. Bad day for wine production. > > They also run about 80 per cent of the cars are diesel. A low

sulfur

> cleaner burning diesel. Something the US should certainly

consider.

> But I also heard from a retired oil driller that says the US is

the

> Saudi of coal. We have a bunch. We can convert that into fuel. The > air force is already looking into that I read this morning in the > paper. If ........... Greenpeace and the tree huggers are so nice > enough to let us retrieve it. > > Criswell > On May 13, 2006, at 12:04 PM, Blake Sobiloff wrote: > > > On May 13, 2006, at 4:47 AM, Spike55 wrote: > >> I think Hydrogen and Alcohol cars are a joke too since

production of

> >> those fuels will take way more energy to produce than today's > >> conventional fuels. > > > > I sat on an airplane next to an investment banker a few months ago > > and had a brief but fascinating conversation with him. This was > > around the time one of the founders of Greenpeace had publicly > > started talking up nuclear power

http://washingtontimes.com/national/

> > 20060424-104215-7645r.htm>. > > > > His contention was that we *had* to start building more nuclear

power

> > plants because it was the only way for us to get to a hydrogen > > economy. You see, nuclear plants generate the same amount of > > electricity day and night, unlike fossil fuel plants that throttle > > back during the evening/low demand periods. So, what do you do

with a

> > bunch of extra energy you have at night? Use it to create

hydrogen.

> > Sure, it's not an efficient process, but it's using energy that

would

> > otherwise go unused and be wasted so the inefficiency is no big

deal.

> > > > His contention was that this hydrogen production was the way to

break

> > the chicken-and-egg problem of switching to hydrogen power. > > > > I'm thinking I should have gotten his card and given him some

money

> > to invest for me. > > -- > > Blake Sobiloff > > > > > > > > >

Posted: **Mon May 15, 2006 2:47 pm**

Right. As I see it, the best way to stick it to the Saudis, Hugo Chavez, Iran, etc., is to decrease demand for the stuff, along with exploring the types of options John proposes, not to rip the tops off of mountains in West Virginia and elsewhere. A certain public official (who shall remain nameless) has told us that energy conservation is a sign of personal virtue, but that it shouldn't be part of a comprehensive energy policy. That makes no sense to me. Apparently it makes no sense to his boss either, because said boss has now started talking publicly about conservation. Here in the northeast, hybrid cars with only one occupant can use HOV lanes at rush hour. And yes, motorcycles can, too.

>From: John Kokola >To: Ronald Criswell , >DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [DSN_KLR650] NKLR: Re: Eco Friendly nature of Hybrid Cars >Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 15:49:00 -0400 > >Nuclear. Wind. Solar. Higher CAFE standards. Better mass-transit >systems in urban areas. Smaller cars on the road. Houses that are >built more tightly and for greater efficiency ... with SIPs and ICFs, >for example. Heating with wood (outside of urban areas), in an >efficient, EPA-regulated stove. > >I definitely agree with you on self-sufficiency, but I don't think that >we should continually be looking for more fossil fuel resources, >especially *without changing how we use them.* There are smarter, >cleaner ways around our energy problems. > >I'm not looking to argue, I'm just saying that there are better >resources available to us than coal. > >--John Kokola > >Ronald Criswell wrote: > > > And your suggestion is ............. for fueling America? We have a > > shit load of wilderness in this country. I am not for ruining the > > land but surely there is a happy medium. We could go back to the > > horse I suppose but then someone would complain about the methane gas > > released into the atmosphere. Still a good deal of oil and gas left > > here ..... but you can't drill offshore in California, Florida, the > > rest of the North slope etc. I have been to Alaska and it is all > > wilderness and would want to keep most of it that way, but I also > > don't want to make Chavez, the Saudis, Iran etc. richer than they > > are. Energy self sufficiency should be the number one issue to me in > > the country. > > > > >Archive Quicksearch at: >http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html >List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com >List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html >Member Map at: http://www.frappr.com/dsnklr650 >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > >

_________________________________________________________________ Don t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

Wilsons Sandbox

knobbie mefo

nklr: eco friendly nature of hybrid cars

nklr: eco friendly nature of hybrid cars

nklr: eco friendly nature of hybrid cars

nklr: eco friendly nature of hybrid cars

nklr: eco friendly nature of hybrid cars

nklr: eco friendly nature of hybrid cars

nklr: eco friendly nature of hybrid cars

nklr: eco friendly nature of hybrid cars

nklr: eco friendly nature of hybrid cars

nklr: eco friendly nature of hybrid cars