Fuel Savings thru Biking/Light Rail a Reality

oilfreeandhappy said:

1. 65% of the oil used in the US is imported, most of it from the other
side of the world. This oil is shipped in tankers which use vast
amounts of oil. Electricity is mostly powered from local
fuels/sources.

What, like coal? Look, I hardly think one wants to advocate a shift to
more coal use.

oilfreeandhappy said:

There has been talk on this board stating that a single-occupant
automobile sometimes has less fuel usage than light rail or buses. The
data put forth for the most part was accurate, but it ignores all the
other stages of fuel usage that is prevalent in an automobile and oil
economy. Consider these facts:

1. 65% of the oil used in the US is imported, most of it from the other
side of the world. This oil is shipped in tankers which use vast
amounts of oil. Electricity is mostly powered from local
fuels/sources.

Like coal from West Virginia!

Quoted message said:

2. Incredible amounts of oil and other types of energy are used in road
paving and repair.

That bring the food you eat.

Quoted message said:

3. Steel manufacture is a major user of all types of energy.
Automobiles, bridges, roads (many road surfaces have steel grids in the
form of rebar or heavy gage cables), barriers are all comprised of
steel. Yes, light rail uses steel, but much less. Once the tracks are
laid, that's it, and the life of railcars is much longer than
automobiles.

I demand a coal powered rail line to my front door!

So, Mr. Oilfree Anonymous, step out your front door and take the light
rail to the post office, then to visit a relative, and finally to pick
up a few items at the grocery before heading home.

Wayne

oilfreeandhappy said:

There has been talk on this board stating that a single-occupant
automobile sometimes has less fuel usage than light rail or buses. The
data put forth for the most part was accurate, but it ignores all the
other stages of fuel usage that is prevalent in an automobile and oil
economy. Consider these facts:

Instead of making arguments supporting the sinkhole that is light rail,
why don't you lobby to convert all light rail lines into *covered* bike
paths with inexpensive rental bikes and trikes available. That would
really save energy, public money, and enhance the health of the users.
For those who don't bike, cycle rickshaws can be employed. If you want
to waste some energy, the covered roof can have fans that provide a
tailwind.

Wayne

Hi Wayne,
Didn't mean to be anonymous. My name is Jim. I'm all for biking. I
commute to work year-round by cycling. Bicycles blend well with Mass
Transit, as most systems accomodate a bicycle.

I certainly don't have all the answers regarding electricity generation
methods. I am very much into wind energy, and I own stock in Vestas,
the leading wind energy manufacturer in the world. Obviously wind
can't solve all our energy needs. I despise nuclear power based on a
moral objection. I don't think we should leave these waste products
for future generations to contend with. Past generations didn't leave
this [censored] for me. No question, coal is a dirty industry, however the
pollution controls are at the plant level, where containment is more
easily accomplished. Currently this is mostly being done on a
voluntary basis, as Christine Whitman, Bush's EPA secretary relaxed the
regulations on this industry. These kind of actions make it less
likely that Wind and Solar solutions will be implemented, because they
artificially hold down the price of fossil fuels.

Light rail has had some successes and some failures (if based on
financial principles) in the US. Denver, St. Louis, Minneapolis, and
Dallas have been very successful. Other rail mass transit (subways,
heavy rail, etc) is very successful and absolutely necessary in large
cities like NY, Chicago, DC and Boston. I hear ridership in Baltimore,
LA, and some others is lower than anticipated. In general, installing
rail mass transit is financially advantageous when a city is confronted
with condensed gridlock, and has no place to expand highways. In these
cases, the cost of light rail can be cheaper than tearing down
buildings, relocating people and businesses, and expanding highways.
Adding buses, although more affordable, is usually not a solution in
these cases, because the buses are confronted by the same gridlock as
the automobile, so it offers no advantage to the commuter.

oilfreeandhappy said:

Hi Wayne,
Didn't mean to be anonymous. My name is Jim. I'm all for biking. I
commute to work year-round by cycling. Bicycles blend well with Mass
Transit, as most systems accomodate a bicycle.

Jim,

I think the benefits of bicycle and mass transit are contingent upon the
local. Short haul mass transit competes with bicycling, siphoning off
riders. I read a European study demonstrating this (though I cannot find
the citation), I see it in action in my community, and it makes
intuitive sense.

Wayne

Dan Connelly said:

What, like coal? Look, I hardly think one wants to advocate a shift to
more coal use.

Which one(s)? Many do. Just remember this the next time you vote.

Matt O.

oilfreeandhappy said:

Hi Wayne,
Didn't mean to be anonymous. My name is Jim. I'm all for biking. I
commute to work year-round by cycling. Bicycles blend well with Mass
Transit, as most systems accomodate a bicycle.

I certainly don't have all the answers regarding electricity generation
methods. I am very much into wind energy, and I own stock in Vestas,
the leading wind energy manufacturer in the world. Obviously wind
can't solve all our energy needs. I despise nuclear power based on a
moral objection. I don't think we should leave these waste products
for future generations to contend with.

Moral objection?!?

Funny how the reprocessing technology that has existed in Europe since
the 70's is pretty much made totally economically infeasible by
ridiculous regulation

....that was called for by people with "moral objections" to the cleanest
and safest energy ever ignored by the US.

Did you know that the three to four month supply of coal at every
coal-fired plant emits more background radiation than a modern and
maintained nuclear plant?

sigh...
--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

Paul Hobson said:

...
Funny how the reprocessing technology that has existed in Europe since
the 70's is pretty much made totally economically infeasible by
ridiculous regulation....

Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel in the proper manner yields by-products
that can be made to do neat tricks like this:
<http://www.rmiembassyus.org/Permanent%20Exhibition/NUCLEAR%20TESTS_files/usnuc_files/26.jpg>.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Reprocessing is just a smoke-screen. Here's some highlights from a
Princeton article, along with the link:

Domestic political opposition to expanded at-reactor spent-fuel storage
or central storage sites made shipment of spent fuel abroad for
reprocessing their only alternative to shutting down their reactors.
Storage of spent fuel is cheaper, safer, and more environmentally
benign than reprocessing, which produces multiple types of radioactive
waste that must be stored in any case, but host communities require
assurances that interim spent-fuel storage will not become permanent.

Given the loss of foreign customers, the continuation of the costly
reprocessing of domestic spent fuel is being questioned in both Britain
and France. A French government study concluded that, if France stops
reprocessing in 2010, it will save 28 to 39 billion francs (US$4 to 5
billion) over the remaining lifetime of its current fleet of power
reactors.

Even 50 years after discharge, the radiation level from penetrating
gamma rays a meter away from an assembly of spent light water-reactor
fuel rods is 5 to 10 Sieverts/hour--enough to assure a lethal dose in
less than an hour.

princeton.eduSciencev293n5539.pdfOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

oilfreeandhappy wrote:

-snip-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I despise nuclear power based on a
moral objection. I don't think we should leave these waste products
for future generations to contend with.

Paul Hobson said:

Moral objection?!?
Funny how the reprocessing technology that has existed in Europe since
the 70's is pretty much made totally economically infeasible by
ridiculous regulation
...that was called for by people with "moral objections" to the cleanest
and safest energy ever ignored by the US.
Did you know that the three to four month supply of coal at every
coal-fired plant emits more background radiation than a modern and
maintained nuclear plant?
sigh...

Around here, the children of the rich drive expensive
station wagons (oops! 'sport vehicles'😉 with multiple bumper
stickers - anti-nuke, anti-oil drilling, anti-expansion of
power plants, etc etc. You gotta wonder what kind of energy
they _would_ like.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

In article <[email hidden]>,

Johnny Sunset said:

Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel in the proper manner yields by-products
that can be made to do neat tricks like this:

<http://www.rmiembassyus.org/Permanent%20Exhibition/NUCLEAR%20TESTS_files/usnu
c_files/26.jpg>.

That none too few aspiring magicians would like to learn that trick is
unsettling. Chief among them: Iran.

Luke

Luke said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Johnny Sunset said:

Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel in the proper manner yields by-products
that can be made to do neat tricks like this:

<http://www.rmiembassyus.org/Permanent%20Exhibition/NUCLEAR%20TESTS_files/usnu
c_files/26.jpg>.

That none too few aspiring magicians would like to learn that trick is
unsettling. Chief among them: Iran.

Luke

[yawns, grabs for bowl of cereal]

A Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

oilfreeandhappy wrote:

-snip-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I despise nuclear power based on a
moral objection. I don't think we should leave these waste products
for future generations to contend with.

Paul Hobson said:

Moral objection?!?
Funny how the reprocessing technology that has existed in Europe since
the 70's is pretty much made totally economically infeasible by
ridiculous regulation
...that was called for by people with "moral objections" to the
cleanest and safest energy ever ignored by the US.
Did you know that the three to four month supply of coal at every
coal-fired plant emits more background radiation than a modern and
maintained nuclear plant?
sigh...

Around here, the children of the rich drive expensive station wagons
(oops! 'sport vehicles'😉 with multiple bumper stickers - anti-nuke,
anti-oil drilling, anti-expansion of power plants, etc etc. You gotta
wonder what kind of energy they _would_ like.

In the words of a Finnish protester who was posed the question, "So
where would you like to get your energy"

Answer: "I'll just plug things into the wall"

[thud]

--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

oilfreeandhappy said:

Reprocessing is just a smoke-screen. Here's some highlights from a
Princeton article, along with the link:

Domestic political opposition to expanded at-reactor spent-fuel storage
or central storage sites made shipment of spent fuel abroad for
reprocessing their only alternative to shutting down their reactors.
Storage of spent fuel is cheaper, safer, and more environmentally
benign than reprocessing, which produces multiple types of radioactive
waste that must be stored in any case, but host communities require
assurances that interim spent-fuel storage will not become permanent.

Given the loss of foreign customers, the continuation of the costly
reprocessing of domestic spent fuel is being questioned in both Britain
and France. A French government study concluded that, if France stops
reprocessing in 2010, it will save 28 to 39 billion francs (US$4 to 5
billion) over the remaining lifetime of its current fleet of power
reactors.

Even 50 years after discharge, the radiation level from penetrating
gamma rays a meter away from an assembly of spent light water-reactor
fuel rods is 5 to 10 Sieverts/hour--enough to assure a lethal dose in
less than an hour.

princeton.eduSciencev293n5539.pdfOpen ↗

I'm not ignoring, you...I just have to run out for now. I'll give proper
responses/concessions in the pm
\\paul

--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

Paul Hobson said:

In the words of a Finnish protester who was posed the question, "So
where would you like to get your energy"

Answer: "I'll just plug things into the wall"

[thud]

Stupid and funny.

Stupid and not so funny is the answer of the U.S.: We'll invade other
countries, maiming, bombing, and killing innocents.

SriBikeJi said:

Paul Hobson said:

In the words of a Finnish protester who was posed the question, "So
where would you like to get your energy" Answer: "I'll just plug
things into the wall" [thud]

Stupid and funny.

Stupid and not so funny is the answer of the U.S.: We'll invade
other countries, maiming, bombing, and killing innocents.

But then they'll be free. Well, except for the dead ones, the maimed
ones, the crippled ones and the ones whose homes and livelihoods are
destroyed.

"A Muzi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

oilfreeandhappy wrote:

-snip-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I despise nuclear power based on a
moral objection. I don't think we should leave these waste

products

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for future generations to contend with.

Paul Hobson said:

Moral objection?!?
Funny how the reprocessing technology that has existed in

Europe since

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the 70's is pretty much made totally economically infeasible

by

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ridiculous regulation
...that was called for by people with "moral objections" to

the cleanest

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and safest energy ever ignored by the US.
Did you know that the three to four month supply of coal at

every

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

coal-fired plant emits more background radiation than a

modern and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

maintained nuclear plant?
sigh...

Around here, the children of the rich drive expensive
station wagons (oops! 'sport vehicles'😉 with multiple bumper
stickers - anti-nuke, anti-oil drilling, anti-expansion of
power plants, etc etc. You gotta wonder what kind of energy
they _would_ like.

Well, one way we could save energy is if you were not open EVERY
DAY since 1 April, 1971. The energy we could have saved by your
closing on holidays for the last 34 years would have been enough
to heat my house for a year or more. -- Jay Beattie.

Tim McNamara said:

But then they'll be free. Well, except for the dead ones, the maimed
ones, the crippled ones and the ones whose homes and livelihoods are
destroyed.

I think you are being overly optimistic... or maybe naive.

If democracy actually happened, it would be outlawed.

Ron Ruff said:

Tim McNamara said:

But then they'll be free. Well, except for the dead ones, the
maimed ones, the crippled ones and the ones whose homes and
livelihoods are destroyed.

I think you are being overly optimistic... or maybe naive.

Sarcastic, actually.

Quoted message said:

If democracy actually happened, it would be outlawed.

Not democracy, just Democrats.