Whats with the lighting issue?
Explain to me how a toyota prius is going to drive me down the highway in 2 feet of snow? How is it going to get me down the muddy dirt road to my cabin? How is it going to hold 4 pairs of skis, 4 people, and all of our other gear?
Who cares if the soccer mom only has 1 kid? I bet that kid has at least a few friends. I used to go to soccer practice with 4 or 5 other kids all the time.
You're an idiot for thinking some tiny little car will fulfill everybody's needs.
And you're an idiot for not reading the post you quoted, which said nothing remotely close to: small cars will fulfill everyone's needs. You made an inferment that doesn't exist. Furthermore, the understanding that yes, FEW people actually NEED suv's has been communicated in this discussion over and over. MORE people actually WANT suv's and big trucks because, well, obviously a vehicle is now a sign of status. Cars used to be for transportation, now they're the official symbol for the rich or the poor. In that line of thinking, I agree with Jeff completely. For the very few people who can prove that, at least 80% of the time SUV and big-truck drivers require those vehicles, then yes, lladnar, your point is well made.
The bottom line is that because we are, in majority, ignorant, we're making choices based on wants, not needs. Our "wants" are costing this planet and its future for generations to come.
And, as a sidenote, the compact cars that you spoke down on...many have better safety and driving records than the suv-class vehicles you tout.
Edited to clear italics - Walt
Never mind! - Walt
Owner, Gould Photography.
MORE people actually WANT suv's and big trucks because, well, obviously a vehicle is now a sign of status. Cars used to be for transportation, now they're the official symbol for the rich or the poor.
If I was looking for a status symbol, I could think of better options than the SUV. I have my own reasons for owning an SUV (one of them), but really don't feel any desire to get into an argument or to seek approval from those who are obviously better humans than me. Yes, I realize it's a black and white issue, and that I'm driving the Hitlermobile. I feel horrible.
Somehow I've been managing to get around Northeast Ohio winters, most recently with a 20-mile commute through rural areas, in a Corolla. How can that be?
Oh yeah, that's right, if it sucks that badly I stay home. Maybe once or twice a year.
Cue the "but I'm important and can't do that and most people on the road are just like me, because, you know, people driving Hummers and Escalades can't miss work because they'll get behind on their mortgage."
Jeff - Advocate of Great Great Tunnels™ - Co-Publisher - PointBuzz - CoasterBuzz - Blog - Music
These italics are really enforcing everyones point. ;)
Walt, if you use your vehicle to its fullest extent, then there's nothing wrong with what you drive. However, this is a society that judges you based on what you wear, what you drive, and who you work for. Its a sad world for kids to grow up in.
I references status quo simply because it's an undeniable truth. Maybe it's not noticeable to older generations, but to someone like myself, it's painfully obvious. This is one of many factors feeding the overall problem being discussed.
Owner, Gould Photography.
But I'm important and can't do that. Most people on the road are just like me.
I should stop going skiing because it hurts the environment.
So I'll ask the stupid question, how does skiing hurt the environment?
Last I checked, as long as we're talking about snow skiing, there's nothing involved with metal and fiberglass that could harm the environment.
Water skiing, as much as I love it, I could understand harming the waters with as much oil as boats lose while running.
eat. sleep. ride! - Coaster apparel and accessories!
Ride on, MrScott!
bholcomb said:
It makes me feel good to know that we as humans have the power to change climate. As soon as we can alter hurricane and tornado paths, we won't have a need for any gods at all.
This is a few days later but.... Have you heard of the HAARP project in Alaska? I don't know much about it, but I have seen a few TV shows and read articles about it online. The facts I gather are that it is a joint Project between a University in Alaska and the Air Force and it is a field of antennas that is supposed to heat the upper ionosphere for some reason. The debate about the project is that it is suspected of creating the Tornadoes in Florida in November 2001 or 2002. It has also been speculated to be able to change the course of weather patterns. Canada and other nations have been outspoken and have demanded the US stop the program. I seen this a few times in various programs on the discovery network and there is even a few websites against it and of course the programs own website.
I am obviously not an expert so I don't have specific and very detailed information on that project so yes it was a hazy fuzzy description. You can easily search it online to learn more if you would like.
On topic, I have often pondered why (outside the large upfront expense) CP doesn't put in a few Wind Turbines and solar panels in their section of the lake. After all if it isn't sunny, it is windy and rainy. It wouldn't be feasible for powering the entire park, but in the off season it may produce enough power that the park would receive checks from the First Energy.
That is something I have wanted to do is place a few small turbines and solar panels on my house and connect to the power grid so the power company is paying me. Aparently it is the new popular thing to do as long as energy companies can keep up with the expense of paying their customers....
Just your usual come and go poster. One week I am here, then I disappear for a while.
MonsterMan said, among other things:
On topic, I have often pondered why (outside the large upfront expense) CP doesn't put in a few Wind Turbines and solar panels in their section of the lake. After all if it isn't sunny, it is windy and rainy. It wouldn't be feasible for powering the entire park, but in the off season it may produce enough power that the park would receive checks from the First Energy.
That is something I have wanted to do is place a few small turbines and solar panels on my house and connect to the power grid so the power company is paying me. Aparently it is the new popular thing to do as long as energy companies can keep up with the expense of paying their customers....
Well, the first issue is that you have to have an electric service provider who does net metering. I don't know about First Energy, but American Electric Power does not allow us customers to connect any power generating equipment directly to their grid...yet. Which seems kind of short sighted to me. If I were to install a PV or wind turbine system on my house, I probably couldn't come close to meeting my personal electrical need most of the time. But in the middle of the afternoon when I am not at home, a set of PV cells could might be able to provide more power than my computers and refrigerator need, and that happens to be when the power company is facing peak demand and could probably use that tiny bit of help I could offer.
And on the car issue, I own a big sedan. I bought a big sedan because I drive long distances (1,600 miles this weekend, much of it with three other people in the car), and because after my last crash I decided I wanted rear wheel drive. On the highway it gets about 25 MPG. In the city, from November to March, when I am not taking long trips, my average mileage drops to about 16, which sucks. But given my income and the size of my garage, it just isn't practical for me to buy a big car for travel and a little car for commuting. That would make sense from an operational perspective, but not from a capital perspective. And that's the case for most people today. When you know you do a lot of traveling by car, you end up buying the car you want to do that traveling in, even though most of your trips are commuting.
Because it isn't practical to buy the big sedan or van to keep in the garage except for the weekend trips AND buy an econobox to drive to work. And I know from experience (I used to have an Eagle Medallion) that if I owned an econobox, I would not have been physically able to spend roughly 28 hours in the driver's seat over the holiday weekend.
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
What's global warming? I thought they were calling it global climate change these days...
-Gannon
-B.S. Civil Engineering, Purdue University
Fuel efficient cars don't have to be econoboxes. There are a number of cars by companies such as VW/Audi, BMW, Volvo, Saab etc. that are extremely comfortable to sit in and drive long distances, have premium appointments and get close to 30 mpg or even more on the highway. Some of the turbo diesels that VW/Audi have are well up in the 40mpg range on the highway.
I totally understand what lladnar is saying about skiing, I'm a life long skier myself, have taken trips of hundreds of miles in snowy conditions to go to the slopes, have a ski rack on my car which cuts the MPGs, and how a vehicle operates and has utility as a ski car is a big factor in what I buy. I usually go to the slopes with only one or two passengers, so a car like the VW Jetta that I have (seats 5) has plenty of room for people and gear with the use of my ski rack. I put 4 snow tires on it, and combined with electronic traction control, electronic stability control, abs, etc. it goes through just about anything.
There are also some nice small SUV's that make great ski vehicles that get upper 20's on the highway, such as this one.
While I agree that super efficient, very "green" cars will not work for everyone, there are a lot of good choices out there now that are efficient, and will do what you want, compared to traditional gas hogs.
I'd rather be in my boat with a drink on the rocks,
than in the drink with a boat on the rocks.
Thanks Pete, I thought he was talking about the act of skiing.
As Pete said, you don't need a huge 4WD SUV to get to the slopes. Back seats fold down in most sedans now and will easily accommodate skis, negating the mpg loss of a roof rack. If there's more than 3 of you going skiing then you could consider a roof rack or even a hybrid SUV for your next purchase. Not everything is as black and white as the conservative base likes to make it seem.
eat. sleep. ride! - Coaster apparel and accessories!
Ride on, MrScott!
The black and white I see in this thread is that SUVs are are always bad, and no matter what you say in favor, someone will come up with a reason why you're wrong. There a line in the sand, no middle ground. If you're on one side, you kick puppies while listening to Rush Limbaugh. If you're on the other, you take pride in your life choices while wishing other people were as smart as you. :)
So, is everything as black and white as the liberal base likes to make it seem?
I suppose it fits right in with the definition, but being against the concept of black and white seems to be not black and white. :)
I don't kick puppies, but I might punt kittens. As you've described, the other side is smug and full of themselves.
-Gannon
-B.S. Civil Engineering, Purdue University
Pete said:
Fuel efficient cars don't have to be econoboxes. There are a number of cars by companies such as VW/Audi, BMW, Volvo, Saab etc. that are extremely comfortable to sit in and drive long distances, have premium appointments and get close to 30 mpg or even more on the highway. Some of the turbo diesels that VW/Audi have are well up in the 40mpg range on the highway.
True. My parents' '99 Cadillac, for instance, seats six very nicely and gets around 35 MPG on the highway. My own sedan only gets about 26, but it is also 14 years old and has more than a quarter of a million miles on it. And, I should add, one of the reasons I bought the car I did was that when I had my previous midsize car in for service, I learned that the full size model was rated for almost the same mileage that I got on the midsize, and sold used for a lower price. Lower capex and equal opex? How could I lose?
But the original argument was made against "big cars" so I was trying to limit myself to those terms. :)
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
Loopy said:
So I'll ask the stupid question, how does skiing hurt the environment?Last I checked, as long as we're talking about snow skiing, there's nothing involved with metal and fiberglass that could harm the environment.
Water skiing, as much as I love it, I could understand harming the waters with as much oil as boats lose while running.
The skiing doesn't hurt the environment, but skiing necessitates owning a vehicle that will get me to and from the hill safely with my gear and friends. Sure I could do it in a Jetta or something but driving up I-75 in a foot of snow is a lot better in something with 4 wheel drive. Not to mention the logistics of fitting 3 pairs of skis, boots, and poles in a car with 3 people.
I wanted to connect with Dave for a second on the power-generating thing...
I am looking at (over the next few years) having a solar-powered AC central air unit installed, do things like that affect the power company or because it's an individual installation, and the rest of the house is still plugged in, that it wouldn't make a difference?
Love the italics!
Owner, Gould Photography.
Walt said:
So, is everything as black and white as the liberal base likes to make it seem?
You are either with us or you are against us :)
This Isn't A Hospital--It's An Insane Asylum!
On micro-power...
The configuration is simple enough...you have a set of photovoltaics, a wind turbine, a hanster wheel, or whatever you have to generate electricity. Typically you are going to be generating AC, but if you try to just plug that into your equipment you're likely to blow something up. So you take that AC and pass it through a full wave bridge to create DC. Then you run it through a filter and a regulator so that you can use it to charge a battery. You have losses that way, but it also makes the power more useful if you can control it. Then you take the battery and feed its output to an inverter to generate the 120v 60Hz AC that your house expects. That part is easy.
The more difficult bit is that odds are very good that you will not produce enough power to solve your own power needs. If you do, that's great, but if you don't, then you need to determine what you can power with your generator and what you have to get from the power company. If you keep everything separate, then the only real issue is making sure that all of the systems operate at the same ground potential (see NFPA 70, Article 250, look up anything that talks about separately derived systems). At this point, your system is no different than going out and getting a little campsite generator and plugging some stuff into it.
What you really want to do, though, is not worry about where your power comes from. If your hamster is generating enough power to drive your house, that's great; and if he isn't, you want to get the power from the power company. That's where net metering systems come in, where your alternative power system is connected to the load side of the service coming into your property. If you are connecting a power supply to the grid, you must work with your power supplier because there are safety issues involved with their workers...most obviously, if the neighborhood goes down, their job is complicated a bit because your hamster is still sending power out to the grid, which means even though the fuse blew on the supply side, the load side is still hot....which is not what any line worker is going to expect!
For a reasonable overview, issues 12 and 14 of Make: describe (12) constructing a PV array, and (14) connecting the system into the power grid.
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
Ben, I surely do.
It has a specific purpose (towing the travel trailer) and doesn't normally travel more than 4 or 5 miles a day otherwise. Jess' Corolla goes everywhere else unless it's totally unavoidable.
eat. sleep. ride! - Coaster apparel and accessories!
Ride on, MrScott!
Closed topic.