quote:

---

MONTREAL - Former President Clinton told a global audience of diplomats, environmentalists and others Friday that the Bush administration is “flat wrong” in claiming that reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to fight global warming would damage the U.S. economy.

With a “serious disciplined effort” to develop energy-saving technology, he said, “we could meet and surpass the Kyoto targets in a way that would strengthen and not weaken our economies.”

---

It's nice to see a major political player finally taking a serious swing at trying to debunk the myth that being smart about energy production will harm the economy, when in reality the exact opposite is true.
 

---

Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
 
Clinton signed Kyoto just for political points, knowing that the Senate would never pass it. (And they didn't, so if you're for making America a Third World country, er, the Kyoto treaty, blame the Senate) I think that it's disingenous that he's attacking Bush for being about as effective as he was.

Despite Clinton's contentions that "Kyoto wouldn't harm the economy", it's not just Bush who feels this way about it, and it's wishful thinking at best to say otherwise.

Perhaps if Kyoto affected some of the other big polluters, such as China, I might be somewhat more sympathetic to it, but as it is, it's pretty much aimed to hurt the United States.
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
I don't know much about Kyoto, would you mind elaborating on why it's aimed to hurt the US?
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
The USA uses a greatly disproportionate amount of the world's energy for its population size, as well as putting out similar levels of pollution. As such, Kyoto would require greater changes of the USA than it would of, say, the UK or Germany. Because we are flagrantly wasteful in some things, by international standards. Fossil fuels being one of them.

However, there are other nations which also pollute a great deal, but not USA levels. The People's Republic of China being an example. However, they are currently undergoing industrialization and modernization which historically has required quite a lot of pollution and resources to achieve.

Since the PRC is modernizing (there are other nations granted similar protections, but the PRC is the best example), and presumably Kyoto does not want to hurt that effort, waivers are made, permitted the PRC to make less changes for the time being than other nations, most particularly the USA, to facilitate their modernization.

I don't think it was targeted at the USA first, I think it was targeted at the world's biggest energy spender and polluter, which happens to be us.

The Senate thought so, too.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
I think it's a shame the drafters decided to give developing nations exemptions and lesser targets under Kyoto.

I think it is a far greater shame that developed countries (mine among them) who could afford to meet their targets used that as an excuse not to.

And I believe that if we see the effects of global warming on a large scale, the economic impact on our countries had we ratified the Kyoto Protocol will seem like a very small price to pay. And I think that if is a big enough risk that we're better off playing it safe than sorry.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Why is it a greater shame, imogen? Much less far greater? If we're serious about this problem, then should we not all be fighting it?

Or are we merely feeling more guilty about our consumption and want to be self-righteous (publicly)?
 

---

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
Actually, imogen, it's been argued rather well by some economists that a relatively small increase in the world temp. from global warming will bring about a net gain economically for the world.

Think about what Canada could do if 3/4 of it wasn't freezing tundra.

This doesn't mean that global warming must be a good thing, of course, but it's something to think about.
 

---

Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
 
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2005-03-06-1.html

OSC has succesfully opined on this one already.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
How would one unsuccessfully opine? What would it look like?
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
You sock, Tiom!
 

---

Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
I think we should be working with countries like China and help them in developing cleaner ways to develop their industries instead of giving them waivers. We could give them the technology at cost or at least show them how to make their industries much cleaner.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
We can do better than that, and that's part of how it would help our economy.

Right now, when America wants to buy solar panels, or wind mills, or any of the major renewable energy sources, where do we buy them? Not domestically, that's for sure. The great majority of them are all produced in Europe, mostly Germany.

Creating a renewable energy infrastructure and economy in America will mean thousands of new jobs, which might come in handy as analysts predict the collapse of the housing industry will cost as many as 800,000 jobs. Makes Ford cutting a couple tens of thousands look like a drop in the bucket.

Further, it lets us start to assert pressure on China, a trade rival, into making their economy more renewable friendly. They don't have an excuse, their economy is flush with cash right now, and if America becomes the best place to buy renewable energy machinery from, then we can even the trade gap. This is about bringing jobs, money and even manufacturing jobs back to America.

Beyond that, nuclear power is more viable, and much safer now than it has ever been before, there's no reason why we can't start construction on new plants, and start working on exporting this technology to third world nations that need clear reliable energy. Further, we could use these plants, from what I'm told, to deplete the amount of nuclear waste that has piled up over the years.

The government was willing to invest several billions of dollars to get so many American industries off the ground, but when it comes to renewables, they throw money and research and then claim their hands are tied. It's a smokescreen, and it only works because the Republicans have been so good at convincing people over the years that Pro-Environment means Anti-Business.
 

---

Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
Lryhawn, I agreed with what you were saying up until the end when you said

quote:

---

It's a smokescreen, and it only works because the Republicans have been so good at convincing people over the years that Pro-Environment means Anti-Business.

---

quote:

---

I could also argue that Democrats have been so good at convincing people over the years that Pro-Business means Anti-Enviornment

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icarus:
I'm trying to figure out what you are saying about hybrid, and by extension eletric, cars, and about the people that drive them . . .

---

I'm saying that they're the mirror image of people who drive Hummers. With a little sanctimonious piety added in.

Now, they are coming out with hybrid cars that don't look any different than real cars, and so my comments are not reflective on them. Honda has a nice Civic Hybrid that I would be willing to buy.
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
My thoughts so far...

I really like the idea of Nuclear Power, I never understood why no one seems to think of it as a viable option. Given a choice between Nuclear Power and Solar or Wind Power, I'd choose Nuclear any day. Why is it that no one seems to think of Nuclear Power as a viable option.

I really want a hybrid car. My friend has one, and she let me drive it once. I could just feel the efficiency every time I braked, it was great. I do not, however, know who or what Ariana Huffington is.

The problem is that a lot of businesses aren't willing to work with environmentalists either. Most businesses seem to be out for the bottom line, and the bottom line is very rarely any good for society or for the environment. I know that opinion makes me a crazy liberal or something in your eyes, tern. But I don't think I am. Look at Ben and Jerry's for example, they manage to make quite a bit of money while maintaining business practices that benefit society. You seem like you want environmentalists to make all of the concessions, when in reality both sides need to make concessions.
 

---

Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
 
I don't consider you a crazy liberal, blacwolve. And I think that concessions need to happen on both sides. My feeling about the relationship between the two is that environmentalists are just inconveniences for businesses - because they are concerned with the bottom line, it's not personal - but conversely, environmentalists have much more negative feelings towards businesses. Certainly, businesses need to show concern for the environment. Likewise, environmentalists need to show concern for businesses. Acting like businesses are an evil aberration of a corrupt capitalist system which will be washed away by sweet, sweet socialism (hyperbole alert) is not a good attitude to have when trying to get businesses to be more responsible.

Arianna Huffington is an interesting character, you can see her attitudes (and a lot of her liberal friends) on www.huffingtonpost.com. Great resource for liberal news and attitudes.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Wow, tern. I'm not sure if I should respect the fact that you make no bones about prejudging people like that.

We own a fully electric car. We also own a traditional internal combustion car. We use the regular car for driving any substantial distance, because the electric car can go neither very far nor very fast. But my wife and I both work within a couple of miles of where we live--and our two daughters go to school within a mile of home, too. So we use the electric car for our day-to-day driving. We use it because it's economical. It never needs gasoline (and the price-per-mile to drive it is about a third of that of a traditional car). It never needs an oil change. It never has any kind of a breakdown, because it doesn't get stressed the same way as an internal combustion car does. (In four years we have owned it, we have never needed service of any sort.) The only maintenance it requires is to add distilled water to the batteries every month or so--honestly, I'm pretty lucky if I get around to it every two months.

You know what else? It's a lot of fun to drive.

We bought the car because it made sense for us. It's economical, and yeah, we like thinking that we're doing something good for the environment. Does that make us sanctimonious? I have never given anyone attitude about what they drive.

Am I a kooky liberal? I don't think so. Half of the candidates I voted for in the last election were republicans. I voted libertarian for president in 2000, and republican in 1992. I'm also pro-life and pro-vouchers, and live in a rather affluent (read "republican") community.

I haven't judged you, but you have judged me, and without knowing anything about me. And I'm the sanctimonious one?

One of the things I used to think was really cool about Hatrack was it's diversity, not in terms of race or whatever, but in terms of lifestyle. The people here are much less homogenous than those in my daily life. I have loved learning about Orthodox Judaism from rivka, about living in a "commune" from plaid, about Mormonism from dozens of posters, about fundemantalist Christianity from a handful of fundamentalist members, about law school from Dagonee, France from Anna, Sri Lanka fromn quidscribis, and about lots of places I've never visited from the many other international Hatrackers, and from the American Hatrackers who live in other parts of the country. I've gotten to interact, in a friendly way, with people different from me in dozens of ways. People ten years older than me. People twenty years younger than me. People who are gay. People who are disabled. Atheists, agnostics, and pagans.

When it really works, you start to realize that even though you may think someone's opinions or decisions are wrong, in many cases the people you meet are still good people trying to do right as they see it.

One of the things that has frustrated me so much with Hatrack lately is the perception that this has changed, that it's okay now to judge people you don't know.

Hearing myself judged by you when you don't know the first thing about me really disappoints me.



[ December 10, 2005, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

Arianna Huffington is an interesting character, you can see her attitudes (and a lot of her liberal friends) on www.huffingtonpost.com. Great resource for liberal news and attitudes.

---

quote:

---

Wow, tern. I'm not sure if I should respect the fact that you make no bones about prejudging people like that.

---

It's a generalization, Icarus. If it doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you. Chill.
 

---

Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
 
Not to mention that I said earlier that I'd be willing to buy one now. Perhaps that would indicate that my attitudes are not as all-inclusive and judgmental as you seem to think.

Having said that, everyone prejudges. I get prejudged as well. That's the hazard of being one of the more conservative posters on a somewhat liberal website. Instead of getting offended, why not enlighten me? Perhaps I might change my opinion that many people who own hybrid/electric cars don't do it to make a statement (that I consider to be often sanctimonious) about their views on the environment. You won't get me to change my opinion that the older style ones are desperately ugly, but then again, I don't like Ford as well. Personal preference.
 

---

Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 


Yeah, Icky, if someone posts a hateful statement about the owners of electric cars, of course it doesn't apply to you, the owner of an electric car. Duh.

Tern, maybe you shouldn't make a hateful generalization about owners of electric cars if you don't mean it to apply to all the owners of electric cars. Just a thought.
 

---

Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
 
I'm sorry, but if you think it is hateful, you have a very low bar for hatefulness.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

Instead of getting offended, why not enlighten me?

---

quote:

---

My undergraduate university. Our Associated Students bought several of those, specifically to make a statement about environmentalism. They even announced it that way in the school newspaper. These are the same guys who every semester pass a resolution demanding that the university spend a lot of money it doesn't have converting the whole campus over to solar power, and spend about seven million dollars every year on a recycling program which brings in one million dollars.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
What I think would be interesting, is if all the environmental groups who spend millions every year trying to stop polluters actually spent that money challenging them on the market. Challenge them by starting a new renewable energy infrastructure in America, and if anyone tries to squelch it, label THEM Anti-Business AND Anti-Environment. That's a one-two punch it'll be hard to sneak out from under.

---

quote:

---

and if anyone tries to squelch it, label THEM Anti-Business AND Anti-Environment. That's a one-two punch it'll be hard to sneak out from under.

---

quote:

---

Also, and I mean this in the kindest way possible, extrapolating anything about college-level student government to the real world is a miss-or-really-miss proposition.

---

quote:

---

But one has to work with the evidence one has.

---

quote:

---

You know the sad thing about Starbucks, is that there are people on the Left who are starting to attack them as well. As well as Reverend Billy, whatever side he represents. They can't win.

---

quote:

---

In this case, I took it as evidence that people who are as little in touch with the real world put such importance on it, that people who are little in touch with the world would tend to buy them.

---

quote:

---

The right attacks a few, too, erosomniac.

---

Oh, I know. The reason I pointed out one of an unending list of reasons I'm not a democrat is because people see and talk to me and assume I am one, because my social views are mostly extremely liberal (except for a few random ones, like my unending support of the death penalty). You would never confuse me for a conservative.

But I hate, hate, hate liberal economic thinking. Hate it.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
FWIW, a lot of people around here have them, as do a lot of people in Key West and other towns arranged (on purpose as in my case or by happenstance as in KW) on New Urbanist principles. This arrangement of a town with everything in extremely close proximity makes neighborhood electric vehicles a great fit, because they're easier to find parking for, cheaper to insure, and less likely to take damage from short-distance driving. (What I mean by this is that the most damage to your engine occurs at startup, because the oil is not being circulated in your engine. Short distance stop and go traffic is more damaging to your car than driving on the interstate is.)

Actually, come to think of it, New Urbanism may be exactly the sort of thing Lyrhawn is hoping to see. New Urbanist towns have proven extremely popular in the last decade or so, and our home values have risen even faster than the rest of the market has--which would please developers and investors. And yet the very architecture of our town encourages (but in no way mandates) many environmentally friendly actions. We have less wasted land. More people walk places, or ride bicycles as transportation. We have more shade which hopefully has a positive effect on our cooling bills. etc.

Anyway, not only do I own an electric car, I also know a lot of other people who do. And, FWIW, I don't no anybody who does it "sanctimoniously." (To be honest, I'm not entirely positive how the term can be applied to car ownership. Or rather, I understand what tern means, but I don't see how you can distinguish between someone who is genuinely sanctimonious in his or her choice of car, and someone who is "an exception.") The people I know include my local state representative (a republican). They include a secretary at my school, who is staunchly liberal and, I imagine, pro-environment as well--but does this necessarily make her ownership of the car sanctimonious? They include my former next door neighbor, an airline pilot who bought one for his daughter's first car, because this way he knew she could not get far from home, or drive too insanely. Actually, I've heard that one many times. They include my department head, a decorated combat veteran (he was in the air force in Vietnam). They include my school's drama teacher. (I don't know her politics. I do know that she's a big Michigan Wolverines fan, though, because she painted her car blue and gold, with a big M and "Go Big Blue!" on it. )
 

---

Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
 
When every encounter that I've had indicates a certain conclusion, when the rhetoric that I read (I read liberal websites occasionally) indicates the same conclusion, when the entire environmentalist left agitates against SUVs, vehicular pollution, and oil drilling and agitates for hybrid cars, then I don't think that my conclusion is hardly unfounded. It it still wrong? Possibly, but you've yet to give me anything to indicate otherwise, just that stated that the student government is filled with unrealistic people. Yet, part of my point is that many people who buy hybrid vehicles are unrealistic.

Now that I know that there are exceptions, such as Icarus, I know that it would have been better to clarify my generalization with "most of".
 

---

Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
 
Icarus, so there are other people, then. Very well, I will take your word for it, and restate, with due apologies:

Prior to conversing with Icarus, every person that I had met and had a hybrid car or held having a hybrid car important was a sanctimonious environmentalist who considered having such a car to be a statement.

And Dag, my sample consists of about forty people. Hardly a small sample when making generalizations from experience.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 

quote:

---

Actually, come to think of it, New Urbanism may be exactly the sort of thing Lyrhawn is hoping to see.

---

quote:

---

When every encounter that I've had indicates a certain conclusion, when the rhetoric that I read (I read liberal websites occasionally) indicates the same conclusion, when the entire environmentalist left agitates against SUVs, vehicular pollution, and oil drilling and agitates for hybrid cars, then I don't think that my conclusion is hardly unfounded.

---

quote:

---

And Dag, my sample consists of about forty people. Hardly a small sample when making generalizations from experience.

---

quote:

---

Whereas the rest of your point is that nonsanctimonious hybrid car drivers are not vocal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
That IS my point. You won't hear about non-sanctimonious hybrid drivers.

---

Don't the numbers speak for themselves in this case? How many people are buying these cars? My mother bought one this year, you wouldn't be hearing about it except that this thread talks about hybrids, and only likes it because it is quieter and she doesn't need to hit the gas station every week anymore, which in san francisco means 3 bucks a gallon.

I would like to know how many people now buy hybrids new, and how that number is growing in proportion to other new cars being bought, where the alternative exists: Ie, I want to see how many people choose a civic over a hybrid civic and why.

People ought also to remember that hybrids have not hit the secondary market yet, there are very few used ones or referbished ones out because they are still being designed and introduced. I like used cars because they are so much cheaper and often more reliable than new cars, but Hybrids are relatively scarce in that market right now.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Lyrhawn, because I'm feeling lazy here's a wikipedia link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_urbanism

Basically, the ideas behind New Urbanism include the following:

• There should be a central "downtown," or town-square area (as opposed to people driving to strip malls to get everything).
• Everybody should live within a reasonable walk of downtown, so that they can choose to walk instead of drive.
• Given the alternatives to driving for going downtown, the huge parking lots of strip malls are unnecessary. Further, parking lots are pedestrian-unfriendly, since they force things further apart to accomodate them, and since they can be unsafe to walk in. Therefore, parking should not separate businesses. Instead, parking can be places in the interiors of blocks, with businesses on the outside (the reverse of the usual model, neh?) or in basement parking or rooftop parking. And, of course, parallel parking.
• Houses should be close together, and have front porches. This facilitates neighbors knowing each other, as opposed to the inward-focus of ranch-houses on huge tracts of land.
• Elementary school should be within walking/biking distance.
• Rather than individuals having huge yards, or rather, since nobody has huge yards, there should be plenty of public parks.
• Streets should not be on rectangular grids. They should meander slightly to make them more interesting, and minor streets should be no more than a turn or two from major streets.
• There should be sidewalks everywhere, and on both sides of the street.

I think my town combines the best of past and present. It is based on the kind of urban planning that was popular before suburbs came to be, but we have an extremely modern infrastructure. Walking around downtown is extremely pleasant. I don't think I did it justice up there--it almost sounds like someone is forcing us to do it. I never have any difficulty finding parking, so that's not the case. Rather, it's that the town is designed to be pedestrian-friendly, and so nobody's making you, but you want to stroll around. You should visit our downtown area on an evening and see how simply alive the place is, at a time when the centers of most towns are dying. I just love to stroll around after a meal, and maybe get dessert or coffee or something, and I love constantly running into people I know downtown. Downtown is just a place you want to be. Last night was Cor's school's staff holiday party, and it was held on the patio of the bar & grill downtown. There was karaoke, and anybody who knows Cor and me knows we can't resist karaoke! So we sang a couple of duets, and people walking by on the sidewalk by the outdoor patio--including many of our students!--crowded/stood on the railing to watch and listen. It's just an awesome environment, and one I'm thrilled to be able to raise my daughters in.

Liberals like the "green" philosophy behind New Urbanism. Conservatives like that it draws inspiration from things that worked earlier in our history. (Conversely, liberals knock it for the things conservatives like and conservatives knock it for the things liberals like. But I'm choosing to focus on the positives here. )
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Based on OSC's articles on urban planning/design, I think he should visit a New Urbanist town if he hasn't already. I think he would like what he sees.
 

---

Posted by SolarStone (Member # 8926) on :
 
I think ya'll are getting off track w/ this, but isn't that what a forum is all about?

Political stuff aside:

Electric cars are NOT a solution for anything unless a nuclear powerplant is downsteam of the wall socket you're plugging it into, otherwise your petroleum usage is merely deferred.

High gas prices are good. Yes, I hate this fact too. The free market will drop the SUV and pick up the viable hybrids. Soon the small, cramped hybrids will be replaced with large, opulent hybrids that use less energy to go faster and further. All this will go quite well without any government help. I should say, "as long as the government doesn't help".

Solar power and windmills are like the ansible. Fine in theory, sound good, a clever device to keep the story moving, but are science-fantasy when the scope of mankind's power needs are considered rationally.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I really like the sound of New Urbanism. I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop, but it sounds like smart planning. I'll have to see if there is a book I can buy that might have some examples of NU in practical use in the real world.

quote:

---

Solar power and windmills are like the ansible. Fine in theory, sound good, a clever device to keep the story moving, but are science-fantasy when the scope of mankind's power needs are considered rationally.

---

quote:

---

when the entire environmentalist left agitates against SUVs, vehicular pollution, and oil drilling and agitates for hybrid cars, then I don't think that my conclusion is hardly unfounded

---

quote:

---

Electric cars are NOT a solution for anything unless a nuclear powerplant is downsteam of the wall socket you're plugging it into, otherwise your petroleum usage is merely deferred. [emphasis added]

---

You'll note that we still have a traditional car, so I'm not claiming that electric cars by themselves are any kind of a solution for everything. However, the second part of your statement is incorrect.

At 8¢/kilowatt-hour, which is what I pay, and I suspect it's a bit high, my car costs me about 1.26¢ per mile to drive. At $2.07 per gallon of gasoline, my car costs me about 9¢ a mile.

I can only conclude from the fact that my car costs over seven times as much to drive that my fuel usage with the electric car must be less.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
*nod* @ Orincoro

Yeah . . . "New" Urbanism isn't really all that New. What it is is a return to urbanism as an ideal as opposed to the sub-urbanism of the last sixty years. (With some new infrastructure thrown in, though.)

So if anything, it's Neotraditional.

(So why did people move away from urbanism in the first place? The allure of larger pieces of property. The American dream, neh? Note what a status symbol the perfect lawn came to be in the latter half of the twentieth century. People living in the city can't have a large plot of land. There isn't the room. The plentiful nature of land in this country made it possible for people of modest means to have large homesteads. And some people still value that, but some people believe that we paid some unintended prices for that, like sprawl, cookie-cutter houses, a turning-in so that nobody knows their neighbors, and hour-long commutes. When I lived in Miami, my longest commute to work was an hour each way. My shortest was twenty-minutes. I know spend as much time walking from my front door to my car, and from my car to my classroom, as I do actually driving the car. My commute is under two miles.)

[ December 11, 2005, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
One very important thing to note is that cooperative apartments and condominium housing are relatively new legal innovations. Prior to that, owning a house (even a townhouse) was the only realistic way for a person to own their home. The financial advantages of home ownership, even without the tax incentives, are very real, as are the emotional benefits.

This definitely contributed to people going to the suburbs.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
*nod*

It occurs to me that another thing that makes New Urbanism new is that there is still often a shift away from big cities, but that rather than being a shift to suburbs, it is a shift to small towns.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
And since getting off-topic is indeed what a forum is all about:

Welcome, SolarStone!
 

---

Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SolarStone:
I think ya'll are getting off track w/ this, but isn't that what a forum is all about?

Political stuff aside:

Electric cars are NOT a solution for anything unless a nuclear powerplant is downsteam of the wall socket you're plugging it into, otherwise your petroleum usage is merely deferred.

High gas prices are good. Yes, I hate this fact too. The free market will drop the SUV and pick up the viable hybrids. Soon the small, cramped hybrids will be replaced with large, opulent hybrids that use less energy to go faster and further. All this will go quite well without any government help. I should say, "as long as the government doesn't help".

Solar power and windmills are like the ansible. Fine in theory, sound good, a clever device to keep the story moving, but are science-fantasy when the scope of mankind's power needs are considered rationally.

---

quote:

---

Out of more than 17 million cars sold every year, only about 311,000 hybrids have been sold since they were introduced eight years ago.

[snip] ... hybrids are gaining traction, picking up "mindshare" where they've yet to gain much market share in the industry -- between skyrocketing demand by car buyers and increased production from auto makers, hybrids are quickly becoming the future of the automobile. Nonetheless, while hybrid production increases are a step in the right direction, the big question is whether automakers will use the efficiency gains to save gas, or to add performance. Although the answer seems obvious -- the vast majority of hybrid owners bought the vehicles to conserve gas -- the next few years may see a big shift in how hybrids function.
Signs of the Shift
The initial signs are positive. Hybrid holdout GM is waking up, recently adding BMW to its month-old "catch up with Toyota and Honda" hybrid development alliance. Then last week Ford announced plans to make half its models more fuel efficient within 5 years and ramping up hybrid production (while one of its executives criticized Toyota for supposedly being "predatory" and for hoarding certain key hybrid components).
Laughing in the face of this new competition, hybrid heavyweight Toyota responded by doubling 2006 hybrid sales targets and planning eventually to roll out hybrid engines across all models.
Automakers haven't suddenly become altruistic about preserving the environment, as nice as that would be. Between spiking gas prices and maturing hybrid technology, it has become good business to make efficient cars. According to hybridcars.com editor Bradley Berman, we're on the precipiece of a tipping point about why people are interested in hybrids.
In a phone interview, he said that "the shift is from purchasing a hybrid based on ideology, whether it's foreign oil dependency, global warming or because you're a technology innovator. Nothing is having as big an impact as $3-a-gallon gasoline." Nevertheless, he added, "we're in a time of great change, and nobody knows [what's going to happen] until they put hybrids out into the marketplace."
You can see this uncertainty in the schizophrenic design decisions being made throughout the hybrid market. Covering all its bases, Honda has the ultra-efficient Insight, the "50/50" (city/highway mileage) Civic hybrid, and the new Accord hybrid, which has sacrificed increased fuel efficiency for the sake of more power.
Again, Toyota stands out. The company's CEO eventually wants to sell 1 million hybrids globally a year by early next decade, but how Toyota does this will be important. Following up on the unexpected success of the gas-sipping Prius, Lexus recently released the RX 400h luxury SUV hybrid, touting it online as possessing "exceptional power -- not just for a hybrid vehicle, but for an SUV as well." Lexus is not marketing its fuel efficiency, even though the estimated 31 mpg in the city is a big improvement over the estimated 17 mpg of its gas-only twin, the RX 330. The downside is that on the highway it barely bests the 330 by a meager 1-2 mpg.
... continued ...

---

quote:

---

[snip]

Thus I am forced to reject the notion that solar and wind are "science-fantasy." When combined with geothermal, biomass, tidal, limited hydroelectric, and nuclear energy, there's no reason why fossil fuel based energy forms can't be drastically reduced over the first half of this century. It's nowhere near as unreasonable as it once was.

---

quote:

---

I just assume Hummer drivers are rich and trying to make a statement about that.

---

quote:

---

How do you know they're trying to make a statement to anyone? Maybe they're former military and their job was driving one. Maybe they like the design. Maybe they work in showbusiness. Maybe they won it in a contest. Maybe they just think they're cool

---

quote:

---

That's a nice assumption. How do you know they're trying to make a statement to anyone?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:
More nuclear power. We've got the tech now. Good luck selling that, though. People still write letters to the editor complaining about Cassini around here.

-----

By the way, be honest: how many people who wouldn't make an assumption about an obvious hybrid-car driver would make an assumption about a Hummer driver?

---

Even if the safety issues are no longer a concern Nuclear Plants create radioactive waste and spent radioactive materials. These waste products are radioactive for millions of years and their disposal is a 'hot' issue. (groan bad pun!)

Solar and Wind Power, along with Geothermal, are good options for the parts of the country that have abundant sun, for instance, or places like the plains, who have abundant wind energy available. Breakthrough research has improved alternative energy sources and is making them more and more efficient and practical. We have catch up to do. Other nations are ahead of us in implementing energy economy. The fact is, Oil is a finite resource.

I wouldn't own a Hummer. Besides the gas guzzling, and the fact that I couldn't afford one, I agree that they are ugly! and so are those boxes! If I won one in a contest I would sell it and pay off my HOUSE!
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Not the new reactor designs they have now Silkie. The newer reactors convert radioactive waste into a much safer form which has a half life of hundreds, not millions of years. From what I understand, old radioactive waste can be converted into this form as well.
 

---

Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Not the new reactor designs they have now Silkie. The newer reactors convert radioactive waste into a much safer form which has a half life of hundreds, not millions of years. From what I understand, old radioactive waste can be converted into this form as well.

---

quote:

---

What if a sheet of solar panels on every home in America could cut American power consumption by 20%?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I don't know how accurate that is, but they've made significant advances. What if a sheet of solar panels on every home in America could cut American power consumption by 20%? What if that figure is more? That's not even including actual solar power plants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Tatiana told me about it, she referred me to this Wikipedia link. Maybe I can get her to post here on it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by blacwolve:
But really, the simple fact is that comparing solar and wind power to nuclear power is like comparing a battery to a power plant. The only thing that could come close to replacing fossil fuels is nuclear power. Yes, it produces waste, but it's the only viable alternative to fossil fuels that we have.

---

At least in part you are comparing Macro to Micro systems. With Nuclear Energy, a large expenditure will produce public energy which you will pay for with a monthly bill. Solar Systems, for example, can be effectively used to power a 'normal' home, with moderate economy in electricity usage and no loss of lifestyle. Once the system is paid for, you get "free" energy, for the cost of maintenance. You even get paid by the utility company for any excess energy that your system creates.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Gah! So much to respond to! I going to post this, even though it probably has all been addressed!

The only hybrid that looks really funky is the latest Prius (and the complete curiosity of the Insight, which was never anything more than a test vehicle here in the States)... But then, there are a bunch of conventional cars that are funky too (the Aztek anyone?). The Honda Civic (I'm a proud owner of a 2004 Civic Hybrid), the Ford Escape, First generation Prius (looked like an Echo), a couple of pickup trucks, the Lexus RX400h, Honda Accord... They all look pretty conventional.

The Civic and Prius (first-gen) have been around for 5 years, the Insight an extra year or two ahead of that. So your argument about hybrids seems largely without merit. There are plenty (mostly) hybrids that look like their conventional counterparts, and they've been out just about as long as the "weird" vehicles.

And the thing is, there is something to being distinctive, both from the manufacturer (free advertising) and consumer (you bought a green car, why wouldn't you want to show off any more than that guy with the mustang and bad-a.. spoiler? I don't get peeved because the Hummer looks like a monstrosity... I get annoyed because it IS a monstrosity, and most people buying one have no need specifically for a Hummer; that any number of other vehicles could suffice.

Just so you know, I bought the hybrid for several reasons:

1) Improved mileage over my 20-year-old Volvo 240. Of course, just about any newer car (including the non-hybrid Civic) would have beaten it.
2) Better emissions. Some other cars come close, and it is diminishing returns, since even polluters of today are much more friendly than those 20-30 years ago.
3) Geekiness. It's new technology. I could have gone with the newer Prius, but the wife didn't like it. Felt clausterphobic in it. The Prius was also a bit pricey.
4) I could afford to make a small statement. I have a good job. I could have gotten a really nice conventional Civic, but I want hybrid technology to succeed, even if it is a stepping stone to a more long lived platform. I support transitional fossils Even if it means I can't have folding back seats.

So yeah, I wanted to make a statement... But it also had to be one that could make sense. The Insight was out at the start (2-seater). The Prius was out due to ergonomic concerns (both the first and second generations). I want people to know that I'm willing to put my money were my mouth is, even as I recognize that the purchase is a net loss from a strictly economic viewpoint. But someone has to take the first, always expensive, step... And if I get excited and want to show it off to people, because it is geeky cool, and it WORKS! is that really something that should be denigrated?

-Bok, Hybrid zealot that knows they aren't for everyone...

---
Ic, the New Urbanist idea is pretty cool. Boston, and vicinity, in many ways holds to it. We have lots of commercial Squares around which neighborhoods are created. It looks like old-fashioned is coming back
 

---

Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Lately, I've been considering tethering toddlers to treadmills. Depending on the cost of candy, this could be very efficient.

---

I think there might still be a law against exploiting children like that. Though if you get the right lobbyists, exceptions to all sorts of situations have been made. Just make sure you don't use the unborn.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Of course, the other problem with nuclear power is that it is another finite (on human scales) fuel source. We'd be buying ourselves another half a millienia, but if we were to pat our backs by changing over, that isn't exactly a good forward thinking precedent for the people who will need to deal with "peak uranium".

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Tom,

quote:

---

No one spends that much money on something that useless because they think it's nifty.

---

quote:

---

That's beside the point though. You're right, in the sense that I don't know for sure, and I never said that my opinion or assumption was a FACT, just a guess, or an ovservation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:

dan-

Of course you also have to consider the fact that "global warming" doesn't just mean that everything gets hotter. It also means that a lot of places, like China, northern Europe and elsewhere will basically turn into Siberia. The western US will go through a horrible drought, so on and so forth, things get bad. Some nations will profit, some will have extremely bad reprecussions. Drought is part of why we should be aggressively researching and implementing desalinazation technology today, and not waiting until we really have a dire need for it.

---

quote:

---

More than 150 nations, including nearly every industrialized country except the United States, agreed Saturday to negotiate a second phase of mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

---

quote:

---

BMW’s announcement of the new technology is somewhat of a technological bombshell as it adds yet another form of hybrid automobile – a turbosteamer. The concept uses energy from the exhaust gasses of the traditional Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) to power a steam engine which also contributes power to the automobile – an overall 15 per cent improvement for the combined drive system. Even bigger news is that the drive has been designed so that it can be installed in existing model series – meaning that every model in the BMW range could become 15% more efficient overnight if the company chose to make the reduced consumption accessible to as many people as possible.

Combining the innovative assistance drive with a 1.8 litre BMW four-cylinder engine on the test rig reduced consumption by up to 15 percent and generated 10 kilowatts more power and 20 Nm more torque. This increased power and efficiency comes for, well, … nothing. The energy is extracted exclusively from the heat in the exhaust gases and cooling water so it is essentially a quantum leap in efficiency.

The Turbosteamer is based on the same principle of the steam engine: liquid is heated to form steam in two circuits and this is used to power the engine. The primary energy supplier is the high-temperature circuit which uses exhaust heat from the internal combustion engine as an energy source via heat exchangers. More than 80 percent of the heat energy contained in the exhaust gases is recycled using this technology. The steam is then conducted directly into an expansion unit linked to the crankshaft of the internal combustion engine. Most of the remaining residual heat is absorbed by the cooling circuit of the engine, which acts as the second energy supply for the Turbosteamer.

The development of the assistance drive has reached the phase involving comprehensive tests on the test rig. The components for this drive have been designed so that they are capable of being installed in existing model series. Tests have been carried out on a number of sample packages to ensure that the BMW 3 Series provides adequate space. The engine compartment of a four-cylinder model offers enough space to allow the expansion units to be accommodated.

---