|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390297 is a reply to message #390234] |
Sun, 12 January 2020 16:22   |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 1:20:04 PM UTC-7, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Here is a 1929 ad for hard coal, which they claim burns
> clean and doesn't pollute.
Surely you've heard of the "Road of Anthracite"? Back when people were riding on
steam trains, they weren't worrying about carbon dioxide emissions causing the
greenhouse effect. They weren't even worrying about the sulfur content of the
coal, although they noticed their silver tarnishing.
But when one rode a train powered by anthracite coal, instead of the cheaper
bituminous stuff, one's clothes didn't get dirty with soot. So anthracite _was_
clean by comparison, and in terms of the metrics being applied.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390303 is a reply to message #390297] |
Sun, 12 January 2020 17:17 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 13:22:41 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 1:20:04 PM UTC-7, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> Here is a 1929 ad for hard coal, which they claim burns
>> clean and doesn't pollute.
>
> Surely you've heard of the "Road of Anthracite"? Back when people were riding on
> steam trains, they weren't worrying about carbon dioxide emissions causing the
> greenhouse effect. They weren't even worrying about the sulfur content of the
> coal, although they noticed their silver tarnishing.
>
> But when one rode a train powered by anthracite coal, instead of the cheaper
> bituminous stuff, one's clothes didn't get dirty with soot. So anthracite _was_
> clean by comparison, and in terms of the metrics being applied.
This situation applies to current motor vehicle emissions. People
keep shouting that we need California's tighter emission standards
everywhere in the US without understanding what those standards are.
They are aimed at smog, not CO2, and require that the efficiency of
engines be compromised in several ways in order to reduce smog. That
reduction in efficiency increases CO2 over what the same vehicle would
emit without the smog-control compromises.
If IPCC is right, more efficient vehicles won't help though.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390304 is a reply to message #390303] |
Sun, 12 January 2020 18:43 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 3:17:26 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 13:22:41 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 1:20:04 PM UTC-7, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> Here is a 1929 ad for hard coal, which they claim burns
>>> clean and doesn't pollute.
>>
>> Surely you've heard of the "Road of Anthracite"? Back when people were riding on
>> steam trains, they weren't worrying about carbon dioxide emissions causing the
>> greenhouse effect. They weren't even worrying about the sulfur content of the
>> coal, although they noticed their silver tarnishing.
>>
>> But when one rode a train powered by anthracite coal, instead of the cheaper
>> bituminous stuff, one's clothes didn't get dirty with soot. So anthracite _was_
>> clean by comparison, and in terms of the metrics being applied.
>
> This situation applies to current motor vehicle emissions. People
> keep shouting that we need California's tighter emission standards
> everywhere in the US without understanding what those standards are.
> They are aimed at smog, not CO2, and require that the efficiency of
> engines be compromised in several ways in order to reduce smog. That
> reduction in efficiency increases CO2 over what the same vehicle would
> emit without the smog-control compromises.
Although that's quite correct in relation to the original meaning of "California
emissions", I thought that California had changed its emission standards
recently to also include carbon-dioxide limits that were the toughest in the
country.
> If IPCC is right, more efficient vehicles won't help though.
Yes, what we need are electric cars, plugged into a grid that gets its
electricity from carbon-free sources.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390308 is a reply to message #390304] |
Sun, 12 January 2020 20:12 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:43:46 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 3:17:26 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 13:22:41 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 1:20:04 PM UTC-7, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> Here is a 1929 ad for hard coal, which they claim burns
>>>> clean and doesn't pollute.
>>>
>>> Surely you've heard of the "Road of Anthracite"? Back when people were riding on
>>> steam trains, they weren't worrying about carbon dioxide emissions causing the
>>> greenhouse effect. They weren't even worrying about the sulfur content of the
>>> coal, although they noticed their silver tarnishing.
>>>
>>> But when one rode a train powered by anthracite coal, instead of the cheaper
>>> bituminous stuff, one's clothes didn't get dirty with soot. So anthracite _was_
>>> clean by comparison, and in terms of the metrics being applied.
>>
>> This situation applies to current motor vehicle emissions. People
>> keep shouting that we need California's tighter emission standards
>> everywhere in the US without understanding what those standards are.
>> They are aimed at smog, not CO2, and require that the efficiency of
>> engines be compromised in several ways in order to reduce smog. That
>> reduction in efficiency increases CO2 over what the same vehicle would
>> emit without the smog-control compromises.
>
> Although that's quite correct in relation to the original meaning of "California
> emissions", I thought that California had changed its emission standards
> recently to also include carbon-dioxide limits that were the toughest in the
> country.
The current California standards regulate NMOG+NOx, CO, HCHO, and
particulates. Those standards go into effect between 2017 and 2028 on
a phase-in basis and will remain the standards until new standards are
created.
< https://www.transportpolicy.net/standard/california-light-du ty-emissions/>
California also has a zero emission vehicle program with the objective
of there being 1.5 million zero emission vehicles in service in
California by 2025.
The have had a corporate average CO2 requirement for some time that
until recently had the same target values as the national corporate
average CO2 requirement. The controversy is that the Executive has
decided to slow the implementation of those requirements ("roll back"
isn't precisely correct--the standards currently in effect are not
reduced, what is altered is future standards. California is fighting
this on the basis of a waiver that was granted to them on the basis of
their "special situation" which was smog, not greenhouse emissions,
and the executive is attempting to pull that waiver.
>> If IPCC is right, more efficient vehicles won't help though.
>
> Yes, what we need are electric cars, plugged into a grid that gets its
> electricity from carbon-free sources.
To meet the IPCC recommendations that is correct. It's not going to
happen under national or California law, but it is what is needed.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390311 is a reply to message #390308] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 00:52 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 6:13:00 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:43:46 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> Yes, what we need are electric cars, plugged into a grid that gets its
>> electricity from carbon-free sources.
> To meet the IPCC recommendations that is correct. It's not going to
> happen under national or California law, but it is what is needed.
Of course, electric cars are expensive.
So I'm willing to compromise.
For people who don't buy new cars:
- people will have, in every major city, adequate public transit so that
everyone can commute to work on public transit - on electrically powered trolley
buses, a proven technology.
- however, they can use their cars to go to their summer cottages on the weekend
and buy groceries, subject to gasoline rationing, similar to that which existed
during World War II.
For people buying new cars:
- instead of _only_ having the option to buy an electric car, which uses very
expensive batteries, and has limited range, a more reasonable option will be
provided: cars powered by wood alcohol.
Fuel derived from biomass is carbon-neutral, and methyl alcohol, unlike ethyl
alcohol, does not directly conflict with food production. This idea is not
original with me, Robert Zubrin, of "The Case for Mars" pointed out the option.
So the IPCC recommendations _can_ be met (or exceeded) without violating any
laws of physics, or expecting people to be able to afford electric cars, which
is also completely unrealistic. Of course, my solution _also_ is unrealistic in
terms of U.S. politics, as it would require the government to issue a lot of
commands to be obeyed - including some that would ruffle the feathers of certain
vested interests.
Apparently, for example, one reason many American cities don't have good public
transit is because people are concerned it might give potential criminals easier
access to their neighborhoods. This means that a certain group of Americans
viewed as "potential criminals" is disadvantaged in securing honest employment,
leading to more of them fulfilling that perception, of course.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390312 is a reply to message #390311] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 01:28 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:52:24 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 6:13:00 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:43:46 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>> Yes, what we need are electric cars, plugged into a grid that gets its
>>> electricity from carbon-free sources.
>
>> To meet the IPCC recommendations that is correct. It's not going to
>> happen under national or California law, but it is what is needed.
>
> Of course, electric cars are expensive.
>
> So I'm willing to compromise.
>
> For people who don't buy new cars:
>
> - people will have, in every major city, adequate public transit so that
> everyone can commute to work on public transit - on electrically powered trolley
> buses, a proven technology.
>
> - however, they can use their cars to go to their summer cottages on the weekend
> and buy groceries, subject to gasoline rationing, similar to that which existed
> during World War II.
Will NOT meet IPCC objectives.
> For people buying new cars:
>
> - instead of _only_ having the option to buy an electric car, which uses very
> expensive batteries, and has limited range, a more reasonable option will be
> provided: cars powered by wood alcohol.
And so we have mass starvation.
> Fuel derived from biomass is carbon-neutral, and methyl alcohol, unlike ethyl
> alcohol, does not directly conflict with food production. This idea is not
> original with me, Robert Zubrin, of "The Case for Mars" pointed out the option.
When Zubrin gets to Mars then he's worth listening to. Alcohol will
be produced in lieu of food.
> So the IPCC recommendations _can_ be met (or exceeded) without violating any
> laws of physics, or expecting people to be able to afford electric cars, which
> is also completely unrealistic. Of course, my solution _also_ is unrealistic in
> terms of U.S. politics, as it would require the government to issue a lot of
> commands to be obeyed - including some that would ruffle the feathers of certain
> vested interests.
It is also unrealistic in terms of economics.
> Apparently, for example, one reason many American cities don't have good public
> transit is because people are concerned it might give potential criminals easier
> access to their neighborhoods. This means that a certain group of Americans
> viewed as "potential criminals" is disadvantaged in securing honest employment,
> leading to more of them fulfilling that perception, of course.
>
> John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390313 is a reply to message #390312] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 06:13 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 11:28:06 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
(quoting me)
>> - instead of _only_ having the option to buy an electric car, which uses very
>> expensive batteries, and has limited range, a more reasonable option will be
>> provided: cars powered by wood alcohol.
> And so we have mass starvation.
>> Fuel derived from biomass is carbon-neutral, and methyl alcohol, unlike ethyl
>> alcohol, does not directly conflict with food production. This idea is not
>> original with me, Robert Zubrin, of "The Case for Mars" pointed out the option.
> When Zubrin gets to Mars then he's worth listening to. Alcohol will
> be produced in lieu of food.
Ethyl alcohol has to be produced from stuff like corn, which is food.
Methyl alcohol can be made from grass clippings and sawdust. Which people can't
eat. Or, for that matter, corn husks.
However, that isn't really a refutation of your argument. Trees and grass still
require soil, sunlight, and water to grow, the same things that are used to grow
food crops. While methyl alcohol could be produced to an extent from certain
waste materials, if one needs to produce the massive quantities needed to fuel
every car on the road, one would have to displace some food production.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390314 is a reply to message #390303] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 09:49 |
scott
Messages: 4239
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 13:22:41 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 1:20:04 PM UTC-7, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> Here is a 1929 ad for hard coal, which they claim burns
>>> clean and doesn't pollute.
>>
>> Surely you've heard of the "Road of Anthracite"? Back when people were riding on
>> steam trains, they weren't worrying about carbon dioxide emissions causing the
>> greenhouse effect. They weren't even worrying about the sulfur content of the
>> coal, although they noticed their silver tarnishing.
>>
>> But when one rode a train powered by anthracite coal, instead of the cheaper
>> bituminous stuff, one's clothes didn't get dirty with soot. So anthracite _was_
>> clean by comparison, and in terms of the metrics being applied.
>
> This situation applies to current motor vehicle emissions. People
> keep shouting that we need California's tighter emission standards
> everywhere in the US without understanding what those standards are.
> They are aimed at smog,
And for very good reason as anyone who lived in Los Angeles from 1958 to 1995
(or Houston today) would attest to.
>> not CO2, and require that the efficiency of
> engines be compromised in several ways in order to reduce smog.
On the other hand, the efficiency of engines has improved by orders
of magnitude over the last five decades, regardless of the emission
standards.
> That
> reduction in efficiency increases CO2 over what the same vehicle would
> emit without the smog-control compromises.
Please provide a citation for this statement.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390318 is a reply to message #390303] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 12:58 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 17:17:24 -0500
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> This situation applies to current motor vehicle emissions. People
> keep shouting that we need California's tighter emission standards
> everywhere in the US without understanding what those standards are.
> They are aimed at smog, not CO2, and require that the efficiency of
> engines be compromised in several ways in order to reduce smog. That
> reduction in efficiency increases CO2 over what the same vehicle would
> emit without the smog-control compromises.
Yep the clear and immediate public health issue (breathing that
shit is bad for you) has been put first since long before anyone cared about
CO2. It has momentum.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390319 is a reply to message #390297] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 13:46 |
|
|
Originally posted by: lee.winson10
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 4:22:42 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 1:20:04 PM UTC-7, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> Here is a 1929 ad for hard coal, which they claim burns
>> clean and doesn't pollute.
>
> Surely you've heard of the "Road of Anthracite"? Back when people were riding on
> steam trains, they weren't worrying about carbon dioxide emissions causing the
> greenhouse effect. They weren't even worrying about the sulfur content of the
> coal, although they noticed their silver tarnishing.
>
> But when one rode a train powered by anthracite coal, instead of the cheaper
> bituminous stuff, one's clothes didn't get dirty with soot. So anthracite _was_
> clean by comparison, and in terms of the metrics being applied.
Actually, as their ads proclaim, there was worry even
back then about air pollution. But the growth of industry
had priority
In any event, bituminous coal advertised, too:
https://archive.org/details/the-saturday-evening-post-1944-0 2-19/page/n85
https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1953-02/page/n9
https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1954-01/page/n1 5
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390324 is a reply to message #390311] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 13:56 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> Apparently, for example, one reason many American cities don't have good public
> transit is because people are concerned it might give potential criminals easier
> access to their neighborhoods.
Or, locally, lead to “gentrification”, although why getting rid of run-down
houses and building new apartments and condos is a bad thing escapes me.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390325 is a reply to message #390312] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 13:56 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:52:24 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 6:13:00 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:43:46 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes, what we need are electric cars, plugged into a grid that gets its
>>>> electricity from carbon-free sources.
>>
>>> To meet the IPCC recommendations that is correct. It's not going to
>>> happen under national or California law, but it is what is needed.
>>
>> Of course, electric cars are expensive.
>>
>> So I'm willing to compromise.
>>
>> For people who don't buy new cars:
>>
>> - people will have, in every major city, adequate public transit so that
>> everyone can commute to work on public transit - on electrically powered trolley
>> buses, a proven technology.
>>
>> - however, they can use their cars to go to their summer cottages on the weekend
>> and buy groceries, subject to gasoline rationing, similar to that which existed
>> during World War II.
>
> Will NOT meet IPCC objectives.
>
>> For people buying new cars:
>>
>> - instead of _only_ having the option to buy an electric car, which uses very
>> expensive batteries, and has limited range, a more reasonable option will be
>> provided: cars powered by wood alcohol.
>
> And so we have mass starvation.
>
>> Fuel derived from biomass is carbon-neutral, and methyl alcohol, unlike ethyl
>> alcohol, does not directly conflict with food production. This idea is not
>> original with me, Robert Zubrin, of "The Case for Mars" pointed out the option.
>
> When Zubrin gets to Mars then he's worth listening to. Alcohol will
> be produced in lieu of food.
Just read a science article where scientists have developed an expensive
catalyst that will convert CO2 to methane and synthetic natural gas, so is
net carbon-neutral.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390326 is a reply to message #390325] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 13:58 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:52:24 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 6:13:00 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:43:46 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
>>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > Yes, what we need are electric cars, plugged into a grid that gets its
>>>> > electricity from carbon-free sources.
>>>
>>>> To meet the IPCC recommendations that is correct. It's not going to
>>>> happen under national or California law, but it is what is needed.
>>>
>>> Of course, electric cars are expensive.
>>>
>>> So I'm willing to compromise.
>>>
>>> For people who don't buy new cars:
>>>
>>> - people will have, in every major city, adequate public transit so that
>>> everyone can commute to work on public transit - on electrically powered trolley
>>> buses, a proven technology.
>>>
>>> - however, they can use their cars to go to their summer cottages on the weekend
>>> and buy groceries, subject to gasoline rationing, similar to that which existed
>>> during World War II.
>>
>> Will NOT meet IPCC objectives.
>>
>>> For people buying new cars:
>>>
>>> - instead of _only_ having the option to buy an electric car, which uses very
>>> expensive batteries, and has limited range, a more reasonable option will be
>>> provided: cars powered by wood alcohol.
>>
>> And so we have mass starvation.
>>
>>> Fuel derived from biomass is carbon-neutral, and methyl alcohol, unlike ethyl
>>> alcohol, does not directly conflict with food production. This idea is not
>>> original with me, Robert Zubrin, of "The Case for Mars" pointed out the option.
>>
>> When Zubrin gets to Mars then he's worth listening to. Alcohol will
>> be produced in lieu of food.
>
> Just read a science article where scientists have developed an expensive
> catalyst that will convert CO2 to methane and synthetic natural gas, so is
> net carbon-neutral.
>
“inexpensive”
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390328 is a reply to message #390311] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 14:07 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:52:24 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc wrote:
>
> On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 6:13:00 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:43:46 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>> Yes, what we need are electric cars, plugged into a grid that gets its
>>> electricity from carbon-free sources.
>
>> To meet the IPCC recommendations that is correct. It's not going to
>> happen under national or California law, but it is what is needed.
>
> Of course, electric cars are expensive.
But many Governments compensate.
> So I'm willing to compromise.
>
> For people who don't buy new cars:
>
> - people will have, in every major city, adequate public transit so that
> everyone can commute to work on public transit - on electrically powered trolley
> buses, a proven technology.
Good point.
[...]
> For people buying new cars:
>
> - instead of _only_ having the option to buy an electric car, which uses very
> expensive batteries, and has limited range, a more reasonable option will be
> provided: cars powered by wood alcohol.
The range of EV increases with time. Many people just drive to work or a
grocery store a few miles away and will never experience to "run out of fuel".
For the myth of charging for a long time. With a gasoline car you wait at
the pump until filled up. With an EV you charge it while shopping in a
shopping mall or at night, when you are at sleep. You don't wait to
charge it: if you fill up a normal car it might take some
minutes. Charging an EV takes a few seconds to plug the car into the
charger and remove the cable when done.
--
Andreas
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390329 is a reply to message #390324] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 14:08 |
|
|
Originally posted by: lee.winson10
On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 1:56:48 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Apparently, for example, one reason many American cities don't have good public
>> transit is because people are concerned it might give potential criminals easier
>> access to their neighborhoods.
>
> Or, locally, lead to “gentrification”, although why getting rid of run-down
> houses and building new apartments and condos is a bad thing escapes me.
Gentrification is a good thing.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390330 is a reply to message #390311] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 14:10 |
|
|
Originally posted by: lee.winson10
On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 12:52:25 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> Apparently, for example, one reason many American cities don't have good public
> transit is because people are concerned it might give potential criminals easier
> access to their neighborhoods. This means that a certain group of Americans
> viewed as "potential criminals" is disadvantaged in securing honest employment,
> leading to more of them fulfilling that perception, of course.
Some people do have that concern and voice objections over transit.
But criminals aren't gonna steal a TV set then lug it to the
bus stop and wait for a bus. Criminals use cars.
Transit access does not adversely impact a neighborhood. If
anything, having a station nearby enhances property values.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390333 is a reply to message #390326] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 14:12 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:58:25 -0700
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> When Zubrin gets to Mars then he's worth listening to. Alcohol will
>>> be produced in lieu of food.
>>
>> Just read a science article where scientists have developed an expensive
>> catalyst that will convert CO2 to methane and synthetic natural gas,
>> so is net carbon-neutral.
>>
>
> “inexpensive”
Oh good! Energy efficient ? How long does it take the catalyst to
wear out ?
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390334 is a reply to message #390324] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 14:42 |
scott
Messages: 4239
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Apparently, for example, one reason many American cities don't have good public
>> transit is because people are concerned it might give potential criminals easier
>> access to their neighborhoods.
>
> Or, locally, lead to “gentrification”, although why getting rid of run-down
> houses and building new apartments and condos is a bad thing escapes me.
No sympathy for those displaced? Where are they to go? They surely can't
afford the new apartments or condos.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390335 is a reply to message #390325] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 14:47 |
scott
Messages: 4239
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:52:24 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 6:13:00 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:43:46 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
>>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > Yes, what we need are electric cars, plugged into a grid that gets its
>>>> > electricity from carbon-free sources.
>>>
>>>> To meet the IPCC recommendations that is correct. It's not going to
>>>> happen under national or California law, but it is what is needed.
>>>
>>> Of course, electric cars are expensive.
>>>
>>> So I'm willing to compromise.
>>>
>>> For people who don't buy new cars:
>>>
>>> - people will have, in every major city, adequate public transit so that
>>> everyone can commute to work on public transit - on electrically powered trolley
>>> buses, a proven technology.
>>>
>>> - however, they can use their cars to go to their summer cottages on the weekend
>>> and buy groceries, subject to gasoline rationing, similar to that which existed
>>> during World War II.
>>
>> Will NOT meet IPCC objectives.
>>
>>> For people buying new cars:
>>>
>>> - instead of _only_ having the option to buy an electric car, which uses very
>>> expensive batteries, and has limited range, a more reasonable option will be
>>> provided: cars powered by wood alcohol.
>>
>> And so we have mass starvation.
>>
>>> Fuel derived from biomass is carbon-neutral, and methyl alcohol, unlike ethyl
>>> alcohol, does not directly conflict with food production. This idea is not
>>> original with me, Robert Zubrin, of "The Case for Mars" pointed out the option.
>>
>> When Zubrin gets to Mars then he's worth listening to. Alcohol will
>> be produced in lieu of food.
>
> Just read a science article where scientists have developed an expensive
> catalyst that will convert CO2 to methane and synthetic natural gas, so is
> net carbon-neutral.
It would have been helpful if you had added a link to the article.
Note that to convert CO2 to CH4 you need to get the H from somewhere.
There appear to be a number of iron-based catalysts being explored
for this purpose.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390336 is a reply to message #390319] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 15:00 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2020-01-13, lee.winson10@gmail.com <lee.winson10@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 4:22:42 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 1:20:04 PM UTC-7,
>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> Here is a 1929 ad for hard coal, which they claim burns
>>> clean and doesn't pollute.
>>
>> Surely you've heard of the "Road of Anthracite"? Back when people were
>> riding on steam trains, they weren't worrying about carbon dioxide
>> emissions causing the greenhouse effect. They weren't even worrying
>> about the sulfur content of the coal, although they noticed their
>> silver tarnishing.
>>
>> But when one rode a train powered by anthracite coal, instead of the
>> cheaper bituminous stuff, one's clothes didn't get dirty with soot.
>> So anthracite _was_ clean by comparison, and in terms of the metrics
>> being applied.
>
> Actually, as their ads proclaim, there was worry even
> back then about air pollution. But the growth of industry
> had priority
"Where there's smoke, there's work!"
-- Firesign Theatre
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390338 is a reply to message #390329] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 15:00 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2020-01-13, lee.winson10@gmail.com <lee.winson10@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 1:56:48 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently, for example, one reason many American cities don't have good
>>> public transit is because people are concerned it might give potential
>>> criminals easier access to their neighborhoods.
>>
>> Or, locally, lead to “gentrification”, although why getting rid of run-down
>> houses and building new apartments and condos is a bad thing escapes me.
>
> Gentrification is a good thing.
Tell that to the people who find themselves priced out of the housing market.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390340 is a reply to message #390335] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 19:12 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 12:47:56 PM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Just read a science article where scientists have developed an expensive
>> catalyst that will convert CO2 to methane and synthetic natural gas, so is
>> net carbon-neutral.
> It would have been helpful if you had added a link to the article.
I remember having read a similar article recently myself. Of course, one reads
so many articles about exciting new advances that never end up reaching the
market, so I can only find it mildly encouraging.
https://phys.org/news/2019-10-catalyst-carbon-dioxide-fuel.h tml
Here we are.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390341 is a reply to message #390324] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 19:18 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 11:56:48 AM UTC-7, Peter Flass wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> Apparently, for example, one reason many American cities don't have good public
>> transit is because people are concerned it might give potential criminals easier
>> access to their neighborhoods.
> Or, locally, lead to “gentrification”, although why getting rid of run-down
> houses and building new apartments and condos is a bad thing escapes me.
It's because, in practice, the people living in the run-down houses and
buildings are merely evicted prior to them being torn down, and the new
apartments and condos are made available on the free market according to their
value - meaning that the kind of people who had been evicted need not apply, and
a better class of people will be coming in to the neighborhood.
A very good thing for the other people living in the neighborhood (whether
they're people moving in to other recently constructed new buildings, or
existing residents of the neighborhood in buildings not slated for change, if
any, and note that change can come in the form of a rent increase too), but not
such a good thing for the people of modest means who have little choice as to
where they can find housing, which shrinks even more when this is done.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390343 is a reply to message #390313] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 19:22 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 03:13:40 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 11:28:06 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
> (quoting me)
>
>>> - instead of _only_ having the option to buy an electric car, which uses very
>>> expensive batteries, and has limited range, a more reasonable option will be
>>> provided: cars powered by wood alcohol.
>
>> And so we have mass starvation.
>
>>> Fuel derived from biomass is carbon-neutral, and methyl alcohol, unlike ethyl
>>> alcohol, does not directly conflict with food production. This idea is not
>>> original with me, Robert Zubrin, of "The Case for Mars" pointed out the option.
>
>> When Zubrin gets to Mars then he's worth listening to. Alcohol will
>> be produced in lieu of food.
>
> Ethyl alcohol has to be produced from stuff like corn, which is food.
>
> Methyl alcohol can be made from grass clippings and sawdust. Which people can't
> eat. Or, for that matter, corn husks.
Maybe it can but it won't.
> However, that isn't really a refutation of your argument. Trees and grass still
> require soil, sunlight, and water to grow, the same things that are used to grow
> food crops. While methyl alcohol could be produced to an extent from certain
> waste materials, if one needs to produce the massive quantities needed to fuel
> every car on the road, one would have to displace some food production.
>
> John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390344 is a reply to message #390333] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 19:28 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:58:25 -0700
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> When Zubrin gets to Mars then he's worth listening to. Alcohol will
>>>> be produced in lieu of food.
>>>
>>> Just read a science article where scientists have developed an expensive
>>> catalyst that will convert CO2 to methane and synthetic natural gas,
>>> so is net carbon-neutral.
>>>
>>
>> “inexpensive”
>
> Oh good! Energy efficient ? How long does it take the catalyst to
> wear out ?
>
Don’t know. If the article said, I missed it. I think the catalyst was some
iron-copper mix.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390345 is a reply to message #390334] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 19:28 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> Apparently, for example, one reason many American cities don't have good public
>>> transit is because people are concerned it might give potential criminals easier
>>> access to their neighborhoods.
>>
>> Or, locally, lead to “gentrification”, although why getting rid of run-down
>> houses and building new apartments and condos is a bad thing escapes me.
>
> No sympathy for those displaced? Where are they to go? They surely can't
> afford the new apartments or condos.
>
It’s a problem. I guess most of them rent, so an increase in property
values doesn’t hurt them. On the other hand, you can’t shut down progress
to keep a run-down neighborhood in stasis.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390346 is a reply to message #390335] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 19:28 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:52:24 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 6:13:00 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> > On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:43:46 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
>>>> > <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> Yes, what we need are electric cars, plugged into a grid that gets its
>>>> >> electricity from carbon-free sources.
>>>>
>>>> > To meet the IPCC recommendations that is correct. It's not going to
>>>> > happen under national or California law, but it is what is needed.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, electric cars are expensive.
>>>>
>>>> So I'm willing to compromise.
>>>>
>>>> For people who don't buy new cars:
>>>>
>>>> - people will have, in every major city, adequate public transit so that
>>>> everyone can commute to work on public transit - on electrically powered trolley
>>>> buses, a proven technology.
>>>>
>>>> - however, they can use their cars to go to their summer cottages on the weekend
>>>> and buy groceries, subject to gasoline rationing, similar to that which existed
>>>> during World War II.
>>>
>>> Will NOT meet IPCC objectives.
>>>
>>>> For people buying new cars:
>>>>
>>>> - instead of _only_ having the option to buy an electric car, which uses very
>>>> expensive batteries, and has limited range, a more reasonable option will be
>>>> provided: cars powered by wood alcohol.
>>>
>>> And so we have mass starvation.
>>>
>>>> Fuel derived from biomass is carbon-neutral, and methyl alcohol, unlike ethyl
>>>> alcohol, does not directly conflict with food production. This idea is not
>>>> original with me, Robert Zubrin, of "The Case for Mars" pointed out the option.
>>>
>>> When Zubrin gets to Mars then he's worth listening to. Alcohol will
>>> be produced in lieu of food.
>>
>> Just read a science article where scientists have developed an expensive
>> catalyst that will convert CO2 to methane and synthetic natural gas, so is
>> net carbon-neutral.
>
> It would have been helpful if you had added a link to the article.
>
> Note that to convert CO2 to CH4 you need to get the H from somewhere.
>
> There appear to be a number of iron-based catalysts being explored
> for this purpose.
>
>
That’s it. The H comes from water.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390347 is a reply to message #390338] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 19:28 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2020-01-13, lee.winson10@gmail.com <lee.winson10@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 1:56:48 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Apparently, for example, one reason many American cities don't have good
>>>> public transit is because people are concerned it might give potential
>>>> criminals easier access to their neighborhoods.
>>>
>>> Or, locally, lead to “gentrification”, although why getting rid of run-down
>>> houses and building new apartments and condos is a bad thing escapes me.
>>
>> Gentrification is a good thing.
>
> Tell that to the people who find themselves priced out of the housing market.
>
There are always other run-down neighborhoods they can move to.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390348 is a reply to message #390324] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 19:30 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:56:47 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Apparently, for example, one reason many American cities don't have good public
>> transit is because people are concerned it might give potential criminals easier
>> access to their neighborhoods.
>
> Or, locally, lead to “gentrification”, although why getting rid of run-down
> houses and building new apartments and condos is a bad thing escapes me.
You own a house in a "bad" neighborhood. Property values are low,
property taxes are low, the government doesn't mess with you. The
people on either side sell out to some wealthy folks who decide to
spruce up their property. Your property value goes up, so your taxes
go up, but your income doesn't go up to match. And your fancy new
neighbors complain to the town about your property so you have to
spend money you don't have doing maintenance on it to get it to the
standard that _they_ want. And ultimately you end up losing it
because you can't afford it anymore.
That's gentrification in a nutshell.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390349 is a reply to message #390328] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 19:33 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 14:07:18 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
<ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:52:24 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 6:13:00 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:43:46 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes, what we need are electric cars, plugged into a grid that gets its
>>>> electricity from carbon-free sources.
>>
>>> To meet the IPCC recommendations that is correct. It's not going to
>>> happen under national or California law, but it is what is needed.
>>
>> Of course, electric cars are expensive.
>
> But many Governments compensate.
>
>> So I'm willing to compromise.
>>
>> For people who don't buy new cars:
>>
>> - people will have, in every major city, adequate public transit so that
>> everyone can commute to work on public transit - on electrically powered trolley
>> buses, a proven technology.
>
> Good point.
>
> [...]
>
>> For people buying new cars:
>>
>> - instead of _only_ having the option to buy an electric car, which uses very
>> expensive batteries, and has limited range, a more reasonable option will be
>> provided: cars powered by wood alcohol.
>
> The range of EV increases with time. Many people just drive to work or a
> grocery store a few miles away and will never experience to "run out of fuel".
>
> For the myth of charging for a long time. With a gasoline car you wait at
> the pump until filled up. With an EV you charge it while shopping in a
> shopping mall or at night, when you are at sleep. You don't wait to
> charge it: if you fill up a normal car it might take some
> minutes. Charging an EV takes a few seconds to plug the car into the
> charger and remove the cable when done.
My then girlfriend and I used to drive from Columbus, Ohio to
Jacksonville Florida in 24 hours. We'd trade off sleeping and driving
so that neither of us was driving exhausted. If we had to charge an
EV for a couple of hours every 300 miles that time would have been
much longer.
EVs are fine for commuter cars but they're a pain in the butt for
travel.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390350 is a reply to message #390330] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 19:34 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:10:23 -0800 (PST), lee.winson10@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 12:52:25 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> Apparently, for example, one reason many American cities don't have good public
>> transit is because people are concerned it might give potential criminals easier
>> access to their neighborhoods. This means that a certain group of Americans
>> viewed as "potential criminals" is disadvantaged in securing honest employment,
>> leading to more of them fulfilling that perception, of course.
>
> Some people do have that concern and voice objections over transit.
>
> But criminals aren't gonna steal a TV set then lug it to the
> bus stop and wait for a bus. Criminals use cars.
>
> Transit access does not adversely impact a neighborhood. If
> anything, having a station nearby enhances property values.
No, they're going to steal you TV, throw it in the back of your car,
steal your car, drive off and sell both.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390351 is a reply to message #390345] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 20:13 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 17:28:09 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Apparently, for example, one reason many American cities don't have good public
>>>> transit is because people are concerned it might give potential criminals easier
>>>> access to their neighborhoods.
>>>
>>> Or, locally, lead to “gentrification”, although why getting rid of run-down
>>> houses and building new apartments and condos is a bad thing escapes me.
>>
>> No sympathy for those displaced? Where are they to go? They surely can't
>> afford the new apartments or condos.
>>
>
> It’s a problem. I guess most of them rent, so an increase in property
> values doesn’t hurt them. On the other hand, you can’t shut down progress
> to keep a run-down neighborhood in stasis.
Of course you can. You can have red-light districts too instead of
constantly moving the crime from one place to another.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390352 is a reply to message #390341] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 20:24 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2020-01-14, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 11:56:48 AM UTC-7, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently, for example, one reason many American cities don't have good
>>> public transit is because people are concerned it might give potential
>>> criminals easier access to their neighborhoods.
>>
>> Or, locally, lead to “gentrification”, although why getting rid of run-down
>> houses and building new apartments and condos is a bad thing escapes me.
>
> It's because, in practice, the people living in the run-down houses and
> buildings are merely evicted prior to them being torn down, and the new
> apartments and condos are made available on the free market according to
> their value - meaning that the kind of people who had been evicted need
> not apply,
Here in Vancouver this is such a common thing that we've coined a portmanteau:
"renoviction". Note that it's not necessary to tear down the building -
renovations are enough.
> and a better class of people will be coming in to the neighborhood.
s/a better class of/richer/
Many of these people are part of the Hong Kong diaspora. Now we're trying
to figure out how to deal with the resulting flood of absentee owners and
landlords. After all, housing is first and foremost an investment, not a
place to live.
My advice to young people around here is to get the hell out of the
Lower Mainland. This might make it hard for the beautiful people
to find grunts to clean their hotel rooms. Boo-hoo.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390353 is a reply to message #390350] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 20:24 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2020-01-14, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:10:23 -0800 (PST), lee.winson10@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 12:52:25 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently, for example, one reason many American cities don't have good
>>> public transit is because people are concerned it might give potential
>>> criminals easier access to their neighborhoods. This means that a certain
>>> group of Americans viewed as "potential criminals" is disadvantaged in
>>> securing honest employment, leading to more of them fulfilling that
>>> perception, of course.
>>
>> Some people do have that concern and voice objections over transit.
>>
>> But criminals aren't gonna steal a TV set then lug it to the
>> bus stop and wait for a bus. Criminals use cars.
>>
>> Transit access does not adversely impact a neighborhood. If
>> anything, having a station nearby enhances property values.
>
> No, they're going to steal you TV, throw it in the back of your car,
> steal your car, drive off and sell both.
Also, pickpockets and purse snatchers hang around transit stations,
ready to hop on the next train after grabbing your stuff. (Or hop
off after picking your pocket on the train.)
My favourite story (it actually happened here) was of the burglar
who broke into a house, stole a TV and an expensive leather jacket,
and called a cab to haul the stuff away. The victim, on waking up
and discovering the crime, couldn't find his cordless phone to report
it, so he hit the "find me" button and tracked the beeping to a bush
outside where the burgler had tossed the phone after calling the cab.
The victim hit the redial button, got the cab company, and then went
to the police, who got a court order to get the cab's records. The
cab driver - who recalled having to load a large object into the
trunk - took the police to the cab's destination the night before.
The burglar was out, but his girlfriend answered the door, and there
was the stolen TV. The girlfriend said the perp had gone down to
the parole office, and that's where they found him - wearing the
leather jacket.
Sometimes the good guy wins.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390354 is a reply to message #390348] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 21:37 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:56:47 -0700, Peter Flass
> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> Apparently, for example, one reason many American cities don't have good public
>>> transit is because people are concerned it might give potential criminals easier
>>> access to their neighborhoods.
>>
>> Or, locally, lead to “gentrification”, although why getting rid of run-down
>> houses and building new apartments and condos is a bad thing escapes me.
>
> You own a house in a "bad" neighborhood. Property values are low,
> property taxes are low, the government doesn't mess with you. The
> people on either side sell out to some wealthy folks who decide to
> spruce up their property. Your property value goes up, so your taxes
> go up, but your income doesn't go up to match. And your fancy new
> neighbors complain to the town about your property so you have to
> spend money you don't have doing maintenance on it to get it to the
> standard that _they_ want. And ultimately you end up losing it
> because you can't afford it anymore.
>
> That's gentrification in a nutshell.
>
Alternatively, your property values go up so you sell at a nice profit and
move to a cheaper neighborhood.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390355 is a reply to message #390349] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 21:38 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 14:07:18 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
> <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:52:24 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 6:13:00 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:43:46 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
>>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > Yes, what we need are electric cars, plugged into a grid that gets its
>>>> > electricity from carbon-free sources.
>>>
>>>> To meet the IPCC recommendations that is correct. It's not going to
>>>> happen under national or California law, but it is what is needed.
>>>
>>> Of course, electric cars are expensive.
>>
>> But many Governments compensate.
>>
>>> So I'm willing to compromise.
>>>
>>> For people who don't buy new cars:
>>>
>>> - people will have, in every major city, adequate public transit so that
>>> everyone can commute to work on public transit - on electrically powered trolley
>>> buses, a proven technology.
>>
>> Good point.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> For people buying new cars:
>>>
>>> - instead of _only_ having the option to buy an electric car, which uses very
>>> expensive batteries, and has limited range, a more reasonable option will be
>>> provided: cars powered by wood alcohol.
>>
>> The range of EV increases with time. Many people just drive to work or a
>> grocery store a few miles away and will never experience to "run out of fuel".
>>
>> For the myth of charging for a long time. With a gasoline car you wait at
>> the pump until filled up. With an EV you charge it while shopping in a
>> shopping mall or at night, when you are at sleep. You don't wait to
>> charge it: if you fill up a normal car it might take some
>> minutes. Charging an EV takes a few seconds to plug the car into the
>> charger and remove the cable when done.
>
> My then girlfriend and I used to drive from Columbus, Ohio to
> Jacksonville Florida in 24 hours. We'd trade off sleeping and driving
> so that neither of us was driving exhausted. If we had to charge an
> EV for a couple of hours every 300 miles that time would have been
> much longer.
Or 10 hours a day New York to the West Coast, about 600 miles/day.
>
> EVs are fine for commuter cars but they're a pain in the butt for
> travel.
>
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390357 is a reply to message #390354] |
Mon, 13 January 2020 22:13 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 19:37:59 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:56:47 -0700, Peter Flass
>> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Apparently, for example, one reason many American cities don't have good public
>>>> transit is because people are concerned it might give potential criminals easier
>>>> access to their neighborhoods.
>>>
>>> Or, locally, lead to “gentrification”, although why getting rid of run-down
>>> houses and building new apartments and condos is a bad thing escapes me.
>>
>> You own a house in a "bad" neighborhood. Property values are low,
>> property taxes are low, the government doesn't mess with you. The
>> people on either side sell out to some wealthy folks who decide to
>> spruce up their property. Your property value goes up, so your taxes
>> go up, but your income doesn't go up to match. And your fancy new
>> neighbors complain to the town about your property so you have to
>> spend money you don't have doing maintenance on it to get it to the
>> standard that _they_ want. And ultimately you end up losing it
>> because you can't afford it anymore.
>>
>> That's gentrification in a nutshell.
>>
>
> Alternatively, your property values go up so you sell at a nice profit and
> move to a cheaper neighborhood.
So where is this "cheaper neighborhood" in Silicon Valley?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390358 is a reply to message #390344] |
Tue, 14 January 2020 01:37 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 17:28:07 -0700
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:58:25 -0700
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> > When Zubrin gets to Mars then he's worth listening to. Alcohol will
>>>> > be produced in lieu of food.
>>>>
>>>> Just read a science article where scientists have developed an
>>>> expensive catalyst that will convert CO2 to methane and synthetic
>>>> natural gas, so is net carbon-neutral.
>>>>
>>>
>>> “inexpensive”
>>
>> Oh good! Energy efficient ? How long does it take the catalyst
>> to wear out ?
>>
>
> Don’t know. If the article said, I missed it. I think the catalyst was
> some iron-copper mix.
Figures, those are the kind of important details that tend to get
left out of announcements like that and tend to be the reason you never
hear of them again.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
