Re: [carfree_cities] Transport Infrastructure (was Shock Tactics)
- I'm afraid that this scheme is mostly a pipe dream, with little likelihood
of practical success. Among other things, there is not much chance that the
entire process could even yield net energy. It is probable that extraction,
refining, distribution, etc., including the embodied energy in the dedicated
equipment, would consume more than the final product could yield.
Indeed, the very notion that we can continue our profligate energy usage by
finding and developing substitutes for cheap oil, is just wrong. We can't
and we won't. The future of civilization depends entirely upon our ability
to live with much less energy and resource consumption than we rich
westerners currently enjoy. Over the next (few) months and years, that's
going to become painfully evident to everyone.
This isn't the forum for extended discussion of these issues, but if anyone
is interested in pointers to the chilling truth and serious treatment of
such matters, I suggest subscribing to the Energy Resources list on eGroups.
If you do, lurk and read for a while. Many of the contributors are among
the most accomplished and respected geologists and energy resource
specialists in the world. The list is moderated, and uninformed opinions
just don't get posted, so it's not a place to champion your favorite
perpetual motion machine design, but reading the list is a very instructive
experience. Reading the archives should prepare you to defend a master's
thesis in energy economics, at least.
----- Original Message -----
From: "J.H. Crawford" <postmaster@...>
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Transport Infrastructure (was Shock Tactics)
> Martha said:
> >Large buildings hold these attractions for me.
> >1) Since the Japanese have little choice but to recover methane
> >hydrates, thus tapping into thousands of times the known fossil fuel
> >reserves, I expect natural gas to be THE fuel for at least a few
> >decades. I am sure they will succeed.
> I've been hearing abou these methan hydrates as if it
> were a fact that they existed. Does anyone have really
> solid data about this stuff? Ron--any links for us?
> > There's certainly a way to carry even more, maybe if oneYou got the point, again. BTW, what's the definition of sport? A sport is
> builds tandem
> > units. Say 2 pedalers could carry 2000 pounds behind. Also
> a larger gear
> > set could help as it would need less pedaling strokes to pull more.
> > Your idea is great! Instead of formula 1 car races (where the winner
> > may lose because his car is defective), we could settle a Grand Prix
> > cycling, that also includes a load carrying competition.
> Gee, it would be super to see the trike or heavy haul biking event on
> sports television for its own interest and because it would
> be a way of
> easing it into peoples' heads that they do not need a van or
> even a car
> to haul significant loads. Heavy haul biking -- sounds pretty brawny
> doesn't it?
an activity or a competition where the natural human body does the work,
isn't that the definition?
I'm getting upset here when in the sports news report on TV they talk about
Formula I before talking about hockey (or baseball in the US) which is
our national sport. I don't consider F1 as a sport since the body of
the athletes doesn't perform the whole exercise. They should read the news
in the order as follows:
- The national sport of your country (hockey, baseball or soccer...)
- The other natural sports in any arbitrary order (including cycling,
running, gym, swimming, canoe, etc...)
- And finally (if there's time left), the F1 or any other artificial sport.