quote Originally posted by fierobear: I'm OK with renewables as long as it is the free market that is doing it. When government MANDATES it, like our governor just did, that's where the trouble starts. These mandates are now often driven by "fighting global warming."

that is just silly. if it was up to the free market, most of the US would be uninhabitable by now.
tho, I understand when it goes over the top - as CA often does.....

quote Originally posted by fierobear: It's not much of a rebuttal. Note the following: "The report was looking solely at wind power that is 'visible' and metered by the national grid, which accounts for around half of total UK wind power generation. Offshore wind farms and some onshore farms that are connected onto the distribution network are not metered." "Further, issues around measuring the installed capacity and grid infrastructure limitations make it difficult to measure metered wind turbine performance with certainty." In other words, the report doesn't cover all of the wind power, only a portion.

Just wanted to point out that that's exactly what the rebuttal was about, you posted an article that used the John Muir Trust report to come to certain conclusions about wind power and I posted and linked a rebuttal of that report saying it was misleading because it only dealt with specific aspects of wind power.

BTW it wasn't meant to disregard your article as a whole just to point out that the author of the article you linked seems to have used a report that is misleading. As with many of these articles it appears to be merely an opinion piece that and slanted one way using data that only supports the authors view, convincing but difficult to determine how accurate it is.

quote Originally posted by Gridlock: I don't say this to be mean, but you are getting really annoying.

I know that some people think it's ok to be annoying by repeatedly misposting political posts in non-politics and interjecting politics into non-political threads, so why should others who find this annoying not feel the same way? In other words, why is it ok for one but not the other? You're annoyed and that's right, but I'm annoyed and that's wrong? That seems somewhat asymmetrical to me. If there's anyone who thinks the political spew into non-politics is not right yet disagrees with my decision to not just stand by apathetically and do nothing, feel free to PM me. Out of the 20,000+ usernames on this forum only eight are on my ignore list, that for being less than civil to me.

If only Cliff would implement user filtering or topic filtering by topic or would enforce his topic categorization system then there wouldn't be anything at issue here. But, as it stands, there is a very small handful of folks here who just can't help spewing their politics everywhere they go. Enough is enough. On other forums it's possible for a user to simply add another user to their "do not show" list, that way when these obsessive political posters spew into threads only those that enjoy reveling the pigsty can see their posts. The same can be done with topics as well, so when a non-political topic is derailed into politics by one of these political terrorists, or vandals, the user can simply mark the thread non-viewable and poof, it's gone.

The net result is that those other forums are fairly civil because the obsessive political posters, finding they no longer have an unwilling audience, tend to move on. These very few political masturbators want, above all, an audience; they're the ultimate exhibitionists. That's what they live for, it's all that matters in their lives.

To sum up, I'm sorry that you find me annoying but not the folks that can't keep their politics in their pants, and I'm sorry that you can't understand my point of view. Maybe the political chicken chokers will change their behavior, then my "annoying" efforts to improve this place will no longer be needed. That's the hope, anyway.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: I know that some people think it's ok to be annoying by repeatedly misposting political posts in non-politics and interjecting politics into non-political threads, so why should others who find this annoying not feel the same way? In other words, why is it ok for one but not the other? You're annoyed and that's right, but I'm annoyed and that's wrong? That seems somewhat asymmetrical to me. If there's anyone who thinks the political spew into non-politics is not right yet disagrees with my decision to not just stand by apathetically and do nothing, feel free to PM me. Out of the 20,000+ usernames on this forum only eight are on my ignore list, that for being less than civil to me. If only Cliff would implement user filtering or topic filtering by topic or would enforce his topic categorization system then there wouldn't be anything at issue here. But, as it stands, there is a very small handful of folks here who just can't help spewing their politics everywhere they go. Enough is enough. On other forums it's possible for a user to simply add another user to their "do not show" list, that way when these obsessive political posters spew into threads only those that enjoy reveling the pigsty can see their posts. The same can be done with topics as well, so when a non-political topic is derailed into politics by one of these political terrorists, or vandals, the user can simply mark the thread non-viewable and poof, it's gone. The net result is that those other forums are fairly civil because the obsessive political posters, finding they no longer have an unwilling audience, tend to move on. These very few political masturbators want, above all, an audience; they're the ultimate exhibitionists. That's what they live for, it's all that matters in their lives. To sum up, I'm sorry that you find me annoying but not the folks that can't keep their politics in their pants, and I'm sorry that you can't understand my point of view. Maybe the political chicken chokers will change their behavior, then my "annoying" efforts to improve this place will no longer be needed. That's the hope, anyway.

The part that separates your annoying behavior with other annoying behavior, is that you think almost everything has to do with politics, and if you see something that YOU don't think should be in the thread, you post some "holier than thou" post about marking everything correctly.

ALL you have to do is hit the back button.

That's IT.

It's NOT hard.

I don't have anything blocked, but I don't read every thread. I read threads that interest me, and post when I have a specific opinion or question on it. Just glaze over them like everyone else.

Threads that aren't marked correctly stay on topic, but every single time you post it immediately turns into the exact same thread as the day before. JazzMan whines, other people get annoyed, and we get into a poop flinging match. This happens because of YOU. YOU are the problem here. It is YOU.

And most of the rest of us find it annoying that someone actually insists that they CANNOT stop reading a thread of which they do not approve. In fact, that person said "there were only two ways they could stop reading" such a thread, and one of those reasons was NOT that they simply NOT read the thread they don't like. That is completely nuts.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: that is just silly. if it was up to the free market, most of the US would be uninhabitable by now. tho, I understand when it goes over the top - as CA often does.....

I've learned that most of this takes somewhat of a symbiosis of corporate interest, and environmentalism. A lot of the environmentally friendly stuff that we take for granted today, are here because it was financially feasible to do so.

For example... using tires as a major component of paving school / college track & field courses. You had hundreds of thousands of tires that were doing nothing but rotting in the forest, damaging the eco-system, and someone got the great idea of grinding them up, and mixing them in with tar to create a solid track with some give. Our high school got one of the first rubberized tracks in the county (Fairfax) and it was awesome...

That's just one example, but there are a lot of others as well.

You know... it's really kind of hit or miss when the government forces something. I can think of some examples that have been positive, and then others which have been detrimental.

When the government forced a lot of the emissions requirements (Nixon administration) in the earl through mid 70s, it had a profound effect on the auto industry, and I tend to think it's what led to a lot of the issues, like the bankruptcy of AMC, and the fiscal hurt that resulted in Chrysler needing a bailout in the 80s... and opening the door for major foreign intervention.

It pretty much provided a quick swift death for big cars, but most of the technology was not proven before it was pushed out, like pellet cats (instead of ceramic) which don't do anything for emissions, but actually restrict the flow of exhaust causing the engine to have to work harder, and use more gas, to do the same thing it could do a few years before.

quote Originally posted by newf: Just wanted to point out that that's exactly what the rebuttal was about, you posted an article that used the John Muir Trust report to come to certain conclusions about wind power and I posted and linked a rebuttal of that report saying it was misleading because it only dealt with specific aspects of wind power. BTW it wasn't meant to disregard your article as a whole just to point out that the author of the article you linked seems to have used a report that is misleading. As with many of these articles it appears to be merely an opinion piece that and slanted one way using data that only supports the authors view, convincing but difficult to determine how accurate it is.

My point was that the data is not complete. At best, we can't conclude much about wind power without complete data, but the wind power advocates seem to seize on only the positives about wind power and ignore the negatives or lack of complete data.

What we *do* know is that wind power doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow, and wind is not constant and predictable enough to include it in a mandate for renewable power. See also my linked article from Texas.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: This also applies to ethanol. It takes more energy than it saves in gas.

The same could be said for CNG... except:


1 - We have more of it here in the US than anywhere else in the entire world.
2 - It's dirt cheap.


The only company that now sells a retail CNG powered vehicle is Honda... I don't know what happened to Ford. They used to sell hundreds of thousands of CNG vehicles all through the 90s and 2000s... the Ranger, Taurus, Crown Victoria... you can't get any of them with CNG anymore I don't think.

We need more stations obviously before it becomes a real consideration for anyone other than fleet and government... but it's like half the price of gasoline for an equivelant amount of fuel needed for travel.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: My point was that the data is not complete. At best, we can't conclude much about wind power without complete data, but the wind power advocates seem to seize on only the positives about wind power and ignore the negatives or lack of complete data.

I agree with the first sentence however and second sentence of your post is exactly what I was pointing out in the article you posted only from a different angle. The non-advocate slanted his view using the negatives and incomplete data.
It's wrong when either side does it, isn't it?

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: The same could be said for CNG... except: 1 - We have more of it here in the US than anywhere else in the entire world. 2 - It's dirt cheap. The only company that now sells a retail CNG powered vehicle is Honda... I don't know what happened to Ford. They used to sell hundreds of thousands of CNG vehicles all through the 90s and 2000s... the Ranger, Taurus, Crown Victoria... you can't get any of them with CNG anymore I don't think. We need more stations obviously before it becomes a real consideration for anyone other than fleet and government... but it's like half the price of gasoline for an equivelant amount of fuel needed for travel.

I remember when I worked at NASA, Kennedy Space Center had it's entire motorpool transitioned to CNG vehicles. Since they have to have a fueling station on base anyway due to the size of the facility, using CNG was a natural choice. KSC made a deal with the local gas company to run a pipeline to the space center for this. They got the company to eat the cost of the pipeline in return for being the gas distributor for the space center. It saved the government tons of money, but you never heard about it because it's not scandalous.

CNG sounds like it could be a great alternative, Here every home is pretty much hooked up, wouldn't need stations if you could refuel at home right?
Question is if we transitioned over to it how expensive would it become?

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: The same could be said for CNG... except: 1 - We have more of it here in the US than anywhere else in the entire world. 2 - It's dirt cheap. The only company that now sells a retail CNG powered vehicle is Honda... I don't know what happened to Ford. They used to sell hundreds of thousands of CNG vehicles all through the 90s and 2000s... the Ranger, Taurus, Crown Victoria... you can't get any of them with CNG anymore I don't think. We need more stations obviously before it becomes a real consideration for anyone other than fleet and government... but it's like half the price of gasoline for an equivelant amount of fuel needed for travel.

The factors of abundance and low price are huge selling points. Any idea what the equivalent energy is in comparison to gasoline?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: The factors of abundance and low price are huge selling points. Any idea what the equivalent energy is in comparison to gasoline?

I don't know the formula, but I know that it's roughly about a 17-18% loss in efficiency... which I realize is substantial; however, with the low cost, it's pretty much worth it. It's said to be almost zero-emissions.

It's low-cost now but if its used for transportation the price will go up. We've already seen this happening with corn and ethanol.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: It's low-cost now but if its used for transportation the price will go up. We've already seen this happening with corn and ethanol.

I certainly agree that the cost will go up, but at this point... well, it's ridiculously cheap. At the very least, it could serve as yet another option from straight gasoline.

Ya, there has to be some idea of how much it would go up though. People use gas for heat, and if you ask my mom about her heating bill, she wouldn't say its cheap.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: CNG sounds like it could be a great alternative, Here every home is pretty much hooked up, wouldn't need stations if you could refuel at home right? Question is if we transitioned over to it how expensive would it become?

But isn't natural gas for homes in *gas* form, and for cars it's "CNG" - compressed, as in cryogenic liquid?

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Ya, there has to be some idea of how much it would go up though. People use gas for heat, and if you ask my mom about her heating bill, she wouldn't say its cheap.

True... but imagine if she used gasoline to heat her house???

Good point Fierobear, You're right, would it be hard to compress it with a home appliance? I think that would add to the appeal.
82 TA, I think that if we all started using natural gas for transportation as well as heating, it could be just as expensive and even more than gasoline.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Good point Fierobear, You're right, would it be hard to compress it with a home appliance? I think that would add to the appeal. 82 TA, I think that if we all started using natural gas for transportation as well as heating, it could be just as expensive and even more than gasoline.

I'm not suggesting that "ALL" of us switch to it. I'm suggesting that it's but yet another "option" to gasoline.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: But isn't natural gas for homes in *gas* form, and for cars it's "CNG" - compressed, as in cryogenic liquid?

It's not cryogenic, it's just highly compressed (>2,900psi) and still gaseous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...mpressed_natural_gas

You may be thinking of LPG/Propane which is liquid at room temperatures at higher pressures and gaseous at atmospheric pressure.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: On other forums it's possible for a user to simply add another user to their "do not show" list, [snip] That's the hope, anyway.

Wouldn't that be wunnerful on PFF?

------------------

Drive safely!

Neptune you and jazz can start your own little forum if you only want to sit and agree with each other all day.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: It's not cryogenic, it's just highly compressed (>2,900psi) and still gaseous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...mpressed_natural_gas You may be thinking of LPG/Propane which is liquid at room temperatures at higher pressures and gaseous at atmospheric pressure.

Yes, thank you for clearing that up.

I think I remember hearing something about a home refueling station for the Honda Civic GX NGV (Natural Gas Vehicle).
The Civic gas costs about $15k.
Civic Hybrod - $23k
Civic GX NGV - $25k

The problem isn't having alternatives - it's having economically competitive alternatives. The GX and gas Civics get close to the same mileage, so the only savings are in the cost of the fuel. It'll take a LONG time to make back a $10k premium. For the near future at least alternative vehicles are going to be more about making a statement than they are about actually saving money.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I think I remember hearing something about a home refueling station for the Honda Civic GX NGV (Natural Gas Vehicle). The Civic gas costs about $15k. Civic Hybrod - $23k Civic GX NGV - $25k The problem isn't having alternatives - it's having economically competitive alternatives. The GX and gas Civics get close to the same mileage, so the only savings are in the cost of the fuel. It'll take a LONG time to make back a $10k premium. For the near future at least alternative vehicles are going to be more about making a statement than they are about actually saving money.

Do you remember what the cost of the Ford CNG vehicles were? I seem to remember that it was like a $5,000 option on the Crown Victoria... probably somewhat the same on the Ranger and the Taurus.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Don't think it can or will happen here? EU to ban cars from cities by 2050

A little late but it's OK. You're a thief; you steal Fieros from their owners. You've been doing this for years and it's time for you to face the music.

Karma is here to fulfill your destiny - you're a thief and it's time that everyone knows.

Do you want to send Andrew to silence me? Fine, I'm right here sitting in my comfy chair. Send him over and I'll deal with him. That won't make your thefts OK.

How can you claim to be a Fiero supporter when you steal these cars from their owners without a care?

Do you want to send Toddster to silence me? Fine, I'm right here sitting in my comfy char. Send him over and I'll deal with him.

You can try to conceal it, but you're a thief.

I seen Obamas presidential limo got a ticket driving thru London. Love that cop.....