Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Not to mention the occasional hail storm .

---

Yep, we have world class hail to go along with our world class wind that could turn your roof into a solar kite.

We have by the way, been at the forefront of wind technology around here, but we're not to keen on all those new transmission lines they want to crisscross our beautiful plains and canyons.

I don't blame them either . That's the other thing that should be discussed here . NIMBY . Green-goes purchase land in pristine areas around here in places where it makes the most sense to build these wind farms... you know ;open space ,exposed ridgelines plenty of wind... and then pack town halls in opposition to wind farm construction because it will ruin their sitelines. Hypocrites think all energy generation should be done in poor neighborhoods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Still waiting for the loudest greenies to lead by example.

---

Me too but they are not green they are trogladites

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Hypocrites think all energy generation should be done in poor neighborhoods.

---

What's wrong with that? If the jobs go to poor neighbourhoods, but green industries like wind and solar aren't about jobs, the're is very little employment once the construction phase is over, not like a good ole dirty coal fired power station. What these green industries will do is actually create unemployment and that's not generally known, other wise your lefty union base wouldn't be interested

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

What's wrong with that? if the jobs go to poor neighbourhoods, but green industries like wind and solar arn't about jobs, the're is very little employment once the construction phase is over, not like a good ole dirty coal fired power station. what these green industries will do is actually create unemployment and that's not generally known, other wise your lefty union base wouldn't be interested

---

And here with our "green jobs initiative," no one can even define what a "green job" is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Me too but they are not green they are trogladites

---

I was thinking of that term earlier in a different context. They want us to live like troglodyte cave-dwellers while they jet set around creating carbon foot prints the size of sasquatch imprints .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

And here with our "green jobs initiative," no one can even define what a "green job" is.

---

Perhaps it's painting rocks green?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Perhaps it's painting rocks green?

---

No no no. Its mowing the lawns for minimum wage ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

No no no. Its mowing the lawns for minimum wage ;)

---

With a rotary push mower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

With a rotary push mower.

---

Which is why we need amnesty, all those jobs Americans won't do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Which is why we need amnesty, all those jobs Americans won't do?

---

So you want an amnesty for all the americans who employ illegal labour, but then labour in america was never illegal

I don't want amnesty, I just didn't engage the sarcasm font.

I just love it when you tell us we should ride bicycles or walk or use mass transit.

I am 72 and ain't going to ride no bike to the nearest grocery store which is 3 miles away.

Mass transit? Only in the megaplexes.

No, the answer is in finding ways to produce more power for the buck. I don't understand why we haven't built any nuclear plants for years or decades. With the technology we have, they are safe, dependable, and will never run out of fuel. They do have to be decommissioned and replaced every so many years.

So now we have a growing number of full electric cars on the market, and for example, the So Tex nuclear plant is do for decommission before long.

Wonder where all that extra electricity will come from? Maybe there will have to be a permit to plug in with certain hours you have to use so the grid won't crash?

Wind and solar are OK, but for any foreseeable future can only provide a small % of our needs.

We will still need oil for a multitude of uses besides fuel. Actally, I think gasoline is a by-product that has no other use than as fuel.

see I told you the problem is lifestyle, Nuclear power is an expensive option that is why coal and gas are used and all the other "renewables" are expensive too, electric cars are popular because the running costs are low but will they be as popular when you pay as much as you do now or more for fuel and you are limited as to how far you can go, you see mass transit has to come into the equation. To solve these problems a different technology is needed and a completely different philosophy of life

Give technology a chance! Forty years ago, air pollution in our cities was much worse than it is now, even though there are millions of cars more. Also, our cars now get about twice the mileage as they did back then.

As for running out of oil, we have huge reserves we haven't touched and abundant natural gas.

Out problem is not lack of supply, it is extreme environmentalists.

Let's give the coming generation the opportunity to solve the problems and not saddle them with impossible finincial burdens, ie: Cap and Tax, or whatever other name they hang on it.

Public transportation will never be available to a major part of the population, as it is only practical in densely populated areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Give technology a chance! Forty years ago, air pollution in our cities was much worse than it is now, even though there are millions of cars more. Also, our cars now get about twice the mileage as they did back then.

---

40 years ago it was the 70's and back then there was a car from Honda it was the crx that would get 50mpg. Most other cars from the big 3 were changing from carburators to fuel injection. But at the beginning of the 70's the high powered 350cui V8's were getting close to 20 mpg. The smog controls of today take away from the raw power an engine can produce and are struggling with having to run as lean as possible. Average MPG of today hasn't doubled nor is it near what it could be. Thanks enviromentalists.

Hi, Cal,

Your comment on the large v8's is right on, but there are not nearly as many of them as there were, so the average mileage is a lot higher, I was only guessing at the double figure.

You do bring up the thought about what we could be getting from ANY engine if it were not for extreme environmental views.

I owned a Subaru FE coupe that would get 33 mpg in town. Not a performance car, but solid transportation that was even comfortable for a long trip. It was a carburetorated, 1.6 flat 4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Hi, Cal,

Your comment on the large v8's is right on, but there are not nearly as many of them as there were, so the average mileage is a lot higher, I was only guessing at the double figure.

You do bring up the thought about what we could be getting from ANY engine if it were not for extreme environmental views.

I owned a Subaru FE coupe that would get 33 mpg in town. Not a performance car, but solid transportation that was even comfortable for a long trip. It was a carburetorated, 1.6 flat 4.

---

The only reason we don't have a carb today is because f the smog controls that were implemented. Also the standard set by the stoichiometric ceiling has been surpassed with today's gasolines. But the still cling to the old unrealistic standards.

Stoichiometry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

40 years ago it was the 70's and back then there was a car from Honda it was the crx that would get 50mpg.

---

I got about 45 mpg in my 95 Protégé. You had to pedal really fast to get up a hill but it didn't use much gas.

Bad news, the sun exploded...

Nasa scientists braced for 'solar tsunami' to hit earth