asshole, 30 yrs from now $7 a gal gas WILL BE CHEAP

In article >,
Larry G > wrote:
>
>this is true around the world at those latitudes? How can other
>countries not only live at those latitudes using less energy but have
>longer life expectancies than us?

Latitude isn't everything. Compare England's climate to Canada's sometime.

>If they heat/cool 1/2 the space per person that we do, does that mean
>they use 1/2 the energy we do without dying from heat or cold but
>instead being just as comfortable as we are?

No, it means they're twice as cramped as we are.


--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.

On Jul 20, 12:21*am, (Matthew Russotto)
wrote:
> In article >,
> Larry G > wrote:
>
>
>
> >this is true around the world at those latitudes? *How can other
> >countries not only live at those latitudes using less energy but have
> >longer life expectancies than us?
>
> Latitude isn't everything. *Compare England's climate to Canada's sometime.
>
> >If they heat/cool 1/2 the space per person that we do, does that mean
> >they use 1/2 the energy we do without dying from heat or cold but
> >instead being just as comfortable as we are?
>
> No, it means they're twice as cramped as we are.

Latitude is NOT everything, agree. We use energy to move 2 tons of
vehicle and one person while they use 1 ton.

We heat and cool 2000 square feet per person while they only heat/cool
the rooms they actually occupy.

We keep water HOT for showers 24/7 while they heat only what they need
and use at the time they shower.

They ride bikes, motor-scooters, and public transit to/from work every
day and rent a larger vehicle for their vacations. We buy large
vehicles to make sure we can tote all the toys to vacation but then
drive it 99% solo to/from work.

They pay $6-7 for gasoline which helps them decide priorities and we
pay under $4 a gallon and complain about the cost of solo commuting.

We don't want to pay what it costs to add wind/solar to the grid but
then complain when non-attainment rules restrict congestion relief
infrastructure.

"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> Larry G > wrote:
>>
>>this is true around the world at those latitudes? How can other
>>countries not only live at those latitudes using less energy but have
>>longer life expectancies than us?
>
> Latitude isn't everything. Compare England's climate to Canada's
> sometime.
>
>>If they heat/cool 1/2 the space per person that we do, does that mean
>>they use 1/2 the energy we do without dying from heat or cold but
>>instead being just as comfortable as we are?
>
> No, it means they're twice as cramped as we are.

Mostly it comes from very small dwellings. NYC dwellers use much less
energy. But the New York Times published an article which stated that the
reason is NOT transporation (transit buses are no more efficient than cars),
but that New York City dwellers live in very small places. In short, to
save energy we will probably 1. have to give up nice-sized houses, 2. eat
grain because feeding the grain to chickens consumes 90% of its food value,
3. travel less too.

On Jul 20, 8:10*am, "george conklin" > wrote:
> "Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > Larry G > wrote:
>
> >>this is true around the world at those latitudes? *How can other
> >>countries not only live at those latitudes using less energy but have
> >>longer life expectancies than us?
>
> > Latitude isn't everything. *Compare England's climate to Canada's
> > sometime.
>
> >>If they heat/cool 1/2 the space per person that we do, does that mean
> >>they use 1/2 the energy we do without dying from heat or cold but
> >>instead being just as comfortable as we are?
>
> > No, it means they're twice as cramped as we are.
>
> * *Mostly it comes from very small dwellings. *NYC dwellers use much less
> energy. *But the New York Times published an article which stated that the
> reason is NOT transporation (transit buses are no more efficient than cars),
> but that New York City dwellers live in very small places. *In short, to
> save energy we will probably 1. have to give up nice-sized houses, 2. eat
> grain because feeding the grain to chickens consumes 90% of its food value,
> 3. travel less too.

transit uses as much or more energy than autos on a per passenger BTU
basis but that would include Europe also. The difference is people
don't use as many total BTUs to commute on transit as they do an auto
commute - which I think averages 40 miles a day.

but living in smaller spaces.. yes..

chickens use 1/10 the energy that burgers do.... even 3rd world
countries eat chicken.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 04:07:56 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
> wrote:

>On Jul 20, 12:21*am, (Matthew Russotto)
>wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Larry G > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >this is true around the world at those latitudes? *How can other
>> >countries not only live at those latitudes using less energy but have
>> >longer life expectancies than us?
>>
>> Latitude isn't everything. *Compare England's climate to Canada's sometime.
>>
>> >If they heat/cool 1/2 the space per person that we do, does that mean
>> >they use 1/2 the energy we do without dying from heat or cold but
>> >instead being just as comfortable as we are?
>>
>> No, it means they're twice as cramped as we are.
>
>Latitude is NOT everything, agree. We use energy to move 2 tons of
>vehicle and one person while they use 1 ton.

Find me a 2000 lb car for sale in the USA that you'd want to drive
from NY to LA that doesn't cost $100,000 'cuz of its carbon fiber
body, titanium frame, and aluminum everything else.

The safety nazis have made everything to be built like a tank and the
envirowackos have hung a pile of heavy pollution equipment all over
the car and the result is a mess.

>We heat and cool 2000 square feet per person while they only heat/cool
>the rooms they actually occupy.

2000 ft. per person? A 4 person family has an 8000 sq. ft. house?
What county you living in, anyway? Al Gore might have that much room,
but I've only got about 1700.

>We keep water HOT for showers 24/7 while they heat only what they need
>and use at the time they shower.

Something to be remedied in my next house, as it is a good idea and at
least doable here. The various authorities at least haven't outlawed
in-line water heaters yet.

>They ride bikes, motor-scooters,

People with death wishes do that around here, too.

>and public transit to/from work every day

to other people's schedules. How pedestrian...

>and rent a larger vehicle for their vacations.

Try to rent an SUV with big knobby tires to go deer hunting in deep
snow. Good luck. Not happenin'

>We buy large vehicles to make sure we can tote all the toys to vacation but then
>drive it 99% solo to/from work.

We buy large vehicles to do everything we want to do when we want to
do it. Try to rent a Winnebago on the 4th of July. Good luck.

>They pay $6-7 for gasoline which helps them decide priorities and we
>pay under $4 a gallon and complain about the cost of solo commuting.

They have much less miles to cover to get where they want to go 'cuz
their countries are smaller.

>We don't want to pay what it costs to add wind/solar to the grid but
>then complain when non-attainment rules restrict congestion relief
>infrastructure.

Wind and solar is too expensive and unreliable. They've been building
it for decades and it's still only a few percent of our baseload
electricity. If the envirowackos don't get the F out of the way and
allow nukes to be built, we'll be building coal plants forever.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:10:16 -0400, "george conklin"
> wrote:

>
>"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
>> In article
>> >,
>> Larry G > wrote:
>>>
>>>this is true around the world at those latitudes? How can other
>>>countries not only live at those latitudes using less energy but have
>>>longer life expectancies than us?
>>
>> Latitude isn't everything. Compare England's climate to Canada's
>> sometime.
>>
>>>If they heat/cool 1/2 the space per person that we do, does that mean
>>>they use 1/2 the energy we do without dying from heat or cold but
>>>instead being just as comfortable as we are?
>>
>> No, it means they're twice as cramped as we are.
>
> Mostly it comes from very small dwellings. NYC dwellers use much less
>energy. But the New York Times published an article which stated that the
>reason is NOT transporation (transit buses are no more efficient than cars),
>but that New York City dwellers live in very small places. In short, to
>save energy we will probably 1. have to give up nice-sized houses,

Naw we won't - just insulate. My favorite is concrete forms
construction.

>2. eat grain because feeding the grain to chickens consumes 90% of its food value,

Huh?

>3. travel less too.

Not happenin'. If it does, the recreational industry will collapse
and then the whole economy will too. The only "travel less" we can do
is recreational.

On Jul 20, 5:39*pm, Dave Head > wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 04:07:56 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Jul 20, 12:21*am, (Matthew Russotto)
> >wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> Larry G > wrote:
>
> >> >this is true around the world at those latitudes? *How can other
> >> >countries not only live at those latitudes using less energy but have
> >> >longer life expectancies than us?
>
> >> Latitude isn't everything. *Compare England's climate to Canada's sometime.
>
> >> >If they heat/cool 1/2 the space per person that we do, does that mean
> >> >they use 1/2 the energy we do without dying from heat or cold but
> >> >instead being just as comfortable as we are?
>
> >> No, it means they're twice as cramped as we are.
>
> >Latitude is NOT everything, agree. We use energy to move 2 tons of
> >vehicle and one *person while they use 1 ton.
>
> Find me a 2000 lb car for sale in the USA that you'd want to drive
> from NY to LA that doesn't cost $100,000 'cuz of its carbon fiber
> body, titanium frame, and aluminum everything else.
>
> The safety nazis have made everything to be built like a tank and the
> envirowackos have hung a pile of heavy pollution equipment all over
> the car and the result is a mess.
>
> >We heat and cool 2000 square feet per person while they only heat/cool
> >the rooms they actually occupy.
>
> 2000 ft. per person? *A 4 person family has an 8000 sq. ft. house?
> What county you living in, anyway? *Al Gore might have that much room,
> but I've only got about 1700.
>
> >We keep water HOT for showers 24/7 while they heat only what they need
> >and use at the time they shower.
>
> Something to be remedied in my next house, as it is a good idea and at
> least doable here. *The various authorities at least haven't outlawed
> in-line water heaters yet.
>
> >They ride bikes, motor-scooters,
>
> People with death wishes do that around here, too.
>
> >and public transit to/from work every day
>
> to other people's schedules. *How pedestrian...
>
> >and rent a larger vehicle for their vacations.
>
> Try to rent an SUV with big knobby tires to go deer hunting in deep
> snow. *Good luck. *Not happenin'
>
> >We buy large vehicles to make sure we can tote all the toys to vacation but then
> >drive it 99% solo to/from work.
>
> We buy large vehicles to do everything we want to do when we want to
> do it. *Try to rent a Winnebago on the 4th of July. *Good luck.
>
> >They pay $6-7 for gasoline which helps them decide priorities and we
> >pay under $4 a gallon and complain about the cost of solo commuting.
>
> They have much less miles to cover to get where they want to go 'cuz
> their countries are smaller.
>
> >We don't want to pay what it costs to add wind/solar to the grid but
> >then complain when non-attainment rules restrict congestion relief
> >infrastructure.
>
> Wind and solar is too expensive and unreliable. *They've been building
> it for decades and it's still only a few percent of our baseload
> electricity. *If the envirowackos don't get the F out of the way and
> allow nukes to be built, we'll be building coal plants forever.

if you include the insurance subsidies necessary for Nukes - the cost
is higher than wind and getting closer to solar..

if you required coal to be as clean as nukes, solar and wind - they'd
be as expensive also.

the truth is that the environment "subsidizes" coal. Natural gas is
much cleaner than coal but more expensive.

there is nothing wrong with solar and wind as use-when-available
sources. What we lack is a grid that can dynamically load balance a
wide variety of sources.

every kilowatt that solar and wind ...CAN GENERATE - is a kilowatt
saved from coal or natural gas or even NUKEs if the NUKE can be
moderated.

net zero houses are possible right now... and they pay for themselves
in under 20 years.

car - okay 2575 and 34mpg....

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2010/hond...428/specs.html

there are 4 or 5 more in this class. As a one person commuter car -
it passes all safety specs and uses about 1/2 the fuel as a typical
American commuting car - which puts you on par with the Europeans.

and it still lets you have the knobby tire behemoth for giggles and
grins

your general attitude ... "smartass american" is the basic problem
with energy use.

You're not about to give anything up until it hurts you in the
pocketbook.

If you had to pay $6-7 a gallon for gas - chances are you be just like
most Europeans... still do your thing ...but find cheaper (less
energy use) ways to do what is important to you per your job and life.

Americans talk-the-talk when it comes to energy and conservation but
actually doing it is a whole nother issue

On Jul 20, 5:42*pm, Dave Head > wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:10:16 -0400, "george conklin"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article
> >> >,
> >> Larry G > wrote:
>
> >>>this is true around the world at those latitudes? *How can other
> >>>countries not only live at those latitudes using less energy but have
> >>>longer life expectancies than us?
>
> >> Latitude isn't everything. *Compare England's climate to Canada's
> >> sometime.
>
> >>>If they heat/cool 1/2 the space per person that we do, does that mean
> >>>they use 1/2 the energy we do without dying from heat or cold but
> >>>instead being just as comfortable as we are?
>
> >> No, it means they're twice as cramped as we are.
>
> > * Mostly it comes from very small dwellings. *NYC dwellers use much less
> >energy. *But the New York Times published an article which stated that the
> >reason is NOT transporation (transit buses are no more efficient than cars),
> >but that New York City dwellers live in very small places. *In short, to
> >save energy we will probably 1. have to give up nice-sized houses,
>
> Naw we won't - just insulate. *My favorite is concrete forms
> construction.
>
> >2. eat grain because feeding the grain to chickens consumes 90% of its food value,
>
> Huh?
>
> >3. travel less too.
>
> Not happenin'. *If it does, the recreational industry will collapse
> and then the whole economy will too. *The only "travel less" we can do
> is recreational.

....travel less... than.... is not the same as NO travel dude.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:57:16 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
> wrote:

>On Jul 20, 5:39*pm, Dave Head > wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 04:07:56 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Jul 20, 12:21*am, (Matthew Russotto)
>> >wrote:
>> >> In article >,
>> >> Larry G > wrote:
>>
>> >> >this is true around the world at those latitudes? *How can other
>> >> >countries not only live at those latitudes using less energy but have
>> >> >longer life expectancies than us?
>>
>> >> Latitude isn't everything. *Compare England's climate to Canada's sometime.
>>
>> >> >If they heat/cool 1/2 the space per person that we do, does that mean
>> >> >they use 1/2 the energy we do without dying from heat or cold but
>> >> >instead being just as comfortable as we are?
>>
>> >> No, it means they're twice as cramped as we are.
>>
>> >Latitude is NOT everything, agree. We use energy to move 2 tons of
>> >vehicle and one *person while they use 1 ton.
>>
>> Find me a 2000 lb car for sale in the USA that you'd want to drive
>> from NY to LA that doesn't cost $100,000 'cuz of its carbon fiber
>> body, titanium frame, and aluminum everything else.
>>
>> The safety nazis have made everything to be built like a tank and the
>> envirowackos have hung a pile of heavy pollution equipment all over
>> the car and the result is a mess.
>>
>> >We heat and cool 2000 square feet per person while they only heat/cool
>> >the rooms they actually occupy.
>>
>> 2000 ft. per person? *A 4 person family has an 8000 sq. ft. house?
>> What county you living in, anyway? *Al Gore might have that much room,
>> but I've only got about 1700.
>>
>> >We keep water HOT for showers 24/7 while they heat only what they need
>> >and use at the time they shower.
>>
>> Something to be remedied in my next house, as it is a good idea and at
>> least doable here. *The various authorities at least haven't outlawed
>> in-line water heaters yet.
>>
>> >They ride bikes, motor-scooters,
>>
>> People with death wishes do that around here, too.
>>
>> >and public transit to/from work every day
>>
>> to other people's schedules. *How pedestrian...
>>
>> >and rent a larger vehicle for their vacations.
>>
>> Try to rent an SUV with big knobby tires to go deer hunting in deep
>> snow. *Good luck. *Not happenin'
>>
>> >We buy large vehicles to make sure we can tote all the toys to vacation but then
>> >drive it 99% solo to/from work.
>>
>> We buy large vehicles to do everything we want to do when we want to
>> do it. *Try to rent a Winnebago on the 4th of July. *Good luck.
>>
>> >They pay $6-7 for gasoline which helps them decide priorities and we
>> >pay under $4 a gallon and complain about the cost of solo commuting.
>>
>> They have much less miles to cover to get where they want to go 'cuz
>> their countries are smaller.
>>
>> >We don't want to pay what it costs to add wind/solar to the grid but
>> >then complain when non-attainment rules restrict congestion relief
>> >infrastructure.
>>
>> Wind and solar is too expensive and unreliable. *They've been building
>> it for decades and it's still only a few percent of our baseload
>> electricity. *If the envirowackos don't get the F out of the way and
>> allow nukes to be built, we'll be building coal plants forever.
>
>if you include the insurance subsidies necessary for Nukes - the cost
>is higher than wind and getting closer to solar..

OK, maybe its between wind and solar, but we can build up a terawatt a
heckuva lot faster with nukes.

>if you required coal to be as clean as nukes, solar and wind - they'd
>be as expensive also.

It'd simply be undoable.

>the truth is that the environment "subsidizes" coal. Natural gas is
>much cleaner than coal but more expensive.

And you have to drill it. The envirowackos are closing off more land
to drilling all the time. The NIMBYS wouldn't allow an LNG terminal
to be built on the US west coast, so now its in Mexico and even if the
LNG may be coming thru the Panama ditch from someplace on the east
coast, it'll still be "foreign" 'cuz Mexico gets a crack at taxing it,
or embargoing it if they want to.

>there is nothing wrong with solar and wind as use-when-available
>sources. What we lack is a grid that can dynamically load balance a
>wide variety of sources.

Sure, and the envirowackos are in concert with the NIMBYs to keep that
from being built, too.


>every kilowatt that solar and wind ...CAN GENERATE - is a kilowatt
>saved from coal or natural gas or even NUKEs if the NUKE can be
>moderated.

Fine. Build 'em. Just don't expect 'em to save you from building
something that works - coal, gas, nukes.

>net zero houses are possible right now... and they pay for themselves
>in under 20 years.

Need a new definition of "net zero." If you don't put power in there
somewhere, the "net zero" house in Atlanta in August is still gonna be
95 degrees or better, and probably kill some poor old person that dies
of the heat.

> car - okay 2575 and 34mpg....
>
>http://www.edmunds.com/new/2010/hond...428/specs.html

Yet it's not 2000 lbs. There used to be 1800 lb cars for sale before
the envirowackos and safety nazis. And 31 mpg combined? Really? You
wanna go from NY to LA in THAT? REALLY????

The new Mustang with the big 6 that will zero-to-60 so as to scare you
gets 31 on the open road. I'll take that, but it ain't nowhere near
2000 lbs.

>there are 4 or 5 more in this class. As a one person commuter car -

Not commuter car. I can't, and most people can't, buy a commuter car
and a road car and a hunting vehicle and a camping vehicle and etc. I
said something to go to NY to LA, IOW a car that would serve for all
your needs for basic transport. Then maybe U can get another car,
maybe a used car, for the other recreational endeavor - hunting,
fishing, camping, etc. That's how people operate here. If they
can't, the recreation industry will be gutted.

>it passes all safety specs and uses about 1/2 the fuel as a typical
>American commuting car - which puts you on par with the Europeans.

Not by a long shot. The Euros had diesel and some commuter cars that
do 68 mpg. The envirowackos have made diesel and almost-impossible
proposition here.

>and it still lets you have the knobby tire behemoth for giggles and
>grins

Nope. Not a commuter / behemouth. That doesn't work. I can't drive
the commuter to Arizona and I wouldn't drive the behemouth to Arizona.
That's 1700 miles or so. I need a "road car" and a "behemouth." My
behemouth is a 3000 lb, approx, Jeep Cherokee, 1998. Yeah, its only 16
- 18 mpg, but I only run it maybe 3000 miles a year now.

>your general attitude ... "smartass american" is the basic problem
>with energy use.

Yep, we're going to continue to do what we've been doing. If we
don't, some major industries are going belly up, starting with the
recreational industries.

>You're not about to give anything up until it hurts you in the
>pocketbook.

I'm not going to give it up then, either.

>If you had to pay $6-7 a gallon for gas - chances are you be just like
>most Europeans... still do your thing ...but find cheaper (less
>energy use) ways to do what is important to you per your job and life.

I'll find a way. Probably someone won't like it, but I'll find a way.
Or I won't, and all the people I was paying for sleeping rooms and
gasoline and souveniers and etc. all over the country will have to go
without my business. Lotsa other people's business, too. They'll go
out of business. More unemployment. But the envirowackos and the
NIMBYs and the safety nazis will all rejoice.

>Americans talk-the-talk when it comes to energy and conservation but
>actually doing it is a whole nother issue

Our real answer will come with electrification. Somebody just has to
invent the magic battery, that's all.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:58:41 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
> wrote:

>> >3. travel less too.
>>
>> Not happenin'. *If it does, the recreational industry will collapse
>> and then the whole economy will too. *The only "travel less" we can do
>> is recreational.
>
>...travel less... than.... is not the same as NO travel dude.

Its the same as NO _recreational_ travel. That's the only less we can
do. Still gotta go to work, the grocery, the haircut. After that,
it's don't go to the movie, don't go to the concert, don't go on
vacation, don't go to the beach, don't go to the casino in the next
state, don't, don't, don't.