"jmcquown" wrote
Dee Dee wrote:
"T" wrote

Yes, RI had trackless trolleys that were electric. We traded that for
the damned diesel burners.

Don't you need fuel to produce electric?
Dee Dee

Water can easily be used to produce electricity.

Unfortunately, many places, like the midwest, burn coal.
Makes the switch to electric powered cars more of a feel good
decision than a helpful one.

nancy

Dee Dee wrote:
"Steve Wertz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:08:40 -0500, Omelet wrote:

In article ,
Steve Wertz wrote:

While Congress does funnel a lot of busses, it also funnels 100x
more cars, too. Did you ever think maybe it was the cars
exhaust?

I did not smell car exhaust as much as diesel fumes from the Busses!

Capitol Metro uses a special type of diesel fuel that doesn't
smell anything like normal diesel. Soem of the busses are hybrid
electric/diesel as well - they use electricty to get up to speed
and diesel at cruising speeds.

How long ago was this?

Anyway - the point is that cars emit much more pollutants and
irritants than busses per passenger mile. But everybody is
afraid to ride busses (or commuter trains/light-rail) because
they're too lazy to get out of their cars.

-sw

That's just made-up poop, sw.
Dee Dee

LOL There are no busses (or other public transport) that run where I live,
since I don't live in "the city". If there were, I might use them. As it
is, there's nothing within walking distance so I drive a small car and
consolidate my trips so I'm not driving around all the time. I know nothing
about the emissions of SUV's but I can't stand them. The drivers think they
own the road. But that's a whole nuther can of nuts

Jill

"jmcquown" wrote

LOL There are no busses (or other public transport) that run where I
live,
since I don't live in "the city". If there were, I might use them. As it
is, there's nothing within walking distance so I drive a small car and
consolidate my trips so I'm not driving around all the time.

If there were buses and trains to go to all of the places I visit
normally, it wouldn't be mass transportation, it would be a bus
driving around constantly with hardly anyone on it. Things
are too spread out to plan an efficient route, it's different in the
city. No chance of taking a bus to where I worked ... no one
else goes to that location or anywhere near it.

I've lived in a city, took plenty of mass transit. It doesn't
work everywhere.

nancy

jmcquown wrote on Sat, 22 Sep 2007 09:22:28 -0500:

j LOL There are no busses (or other public transport) that
j run where I live, since I don't live in "the city". If
j there were, I might use them. As it is, there's nothing
j within walking distance so I drive a small car and
j consolidate my trips so I'm not driving around all the time.
j I know nothing about the emissions of SUV's but I can't
j stand them. The drivers think they own the road. But
j that's a whole nuther can of nuts

Part of the problem of SUVs is that they are usually wider than
regular cars and are often driven by people whose driver skills
and stereoscopic vision is deteriorating so they tend to move
close to or over dividing lines in roads or parking lots. There
is often an inverse proportionality between the size of the
driver and the size of the SUV :-) There is no public
transportation within a mile and a half of where I live and I
drive a medium-sized SUV for carrying capacity and for 4-wheel
drive during snow.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

"James Silverton" wrote in
news:6N9Ji.127$9r4.29@trnddc04:


Part of the problem of SUVs is that they are usually wider
than regular cars and are often driven by people whose
driver skills and stereoscopic vision is deteriorating so
they tend to move close to or over dividing lines in roads
or parking lots. There is often an inverse proportionality
between the size of the driver and the size of the SUV :-)

this is oddly true. when i was at the Ford dealer cosigning
for our pickup (registered farm. it isn't allowed over 30
miles from our property) there was this guy who was barely
5'2" looking to buy an Expedition. he had to stand on tiptoe
to look in through the window of the vehicle. big SUVs are
frequently compensating for other elements of the anatomy...

There is no public transportation within a mile and a half
of where I live and I drive a medium-sized SUV for carrying
capacity and for 4-wheel drive during snow.

there is no public transportation within 30 miles of where i
live. i have a 2007 Honda Pilot & a 1998 Honda CR-V. i bought
the Pilot because i can't get full size goats into the CR-V
(it fit the pygmy & the Angora goats, but they're small). for
most of my local driving i still use the CR-V because it gets
better mileage, but the Pilot is handy for getting the goats
to shows & stuff (the vet comes here) & taking a bunch of 1st-
3rd graders on field trips & it holds more camping gear. the
CR-V has 200k miles, no rust & the original exhaust. i expect
the Pilot to last even longer since it gets driven less.
what i really don't understand is 2 wheel drive SUVs, or
anyone who buys things like Escalades to commute in.
lee

"jmcquown" wrote in message
...

LOL There are no busses (or other public transport) that run where I
live,
since I don't live in "the city". If there were, I might use them. As it
is, there's nothing within walking distance so I drive a small car and
consolidate my trips so I'm not driving around all the time. I know
nothing
about the emissions of SUV's but I can't stand them. The drivers think
they
own the road. But that's a whole nuther can of nuts

Jill

I guess I'm fortunate in that we drive only about 3 miles a week, to the
bank and post office. We work where we live and our place is within a
couple of minutes walk of the major shopping areas in our area. As a matter
of fact it is easier for us to walk to the local shopping mall than drive
their with the parking. Now before I lived here I lived in South Florida
where driving or mass transit didn't make much difference since you are
going to spend hours going too an from your job. Some places with mass
transit are as bad or worse than some without.


Joe Cilinceon

"jmcquown" wrote in message
...


Water can easily be used to produce electricity.

Jill


HUH? Then why does the TVA (look it up) use oil and/or coal?

Dee Dee wrote:
"T" wrote in message
. ..
Yes, RI had trackless trolleys that were electric. We traded that for
the damned diesel burners.


Don't you need fuel to produce electric?
Dee Dee


Hydroelectric, wind (windmills), photovoltaic (solar cells) etc are
other sources.

T wrote:

BTW, a good book to read regarding the diesel bus thing is Internal
Combustion by Edwin Black. Lets put the blame where it belongs, General
Motors, Standard Oil (Now Exxon-Mobil), and Firestone.

And check this out:
http://truthspew.wordpress.com/2007/...d-what-is-now/

Yes, RI had trackless trolleys that were electric. We traded that for
the damned diesel burners.

My area had an extensive array of electric trolleys and electric
interurban trains that met their demise thanks to Firestone & GM.

Dee Dee wrote:


Anyway - the point is that cars emit much more pollutants and
irritants than busses per passenger mile. But everybody is
afraid to ride busses (or commuter trains/light-rail) because
they're too lazy to get out of their cars.

-sw

That's just made-up poop, sw.
Dee Dee


Not really, there is a tremendous economy of scale running buses/trains
etc when compared to individual cars as far as overall fuel efficiency
and pollution.

Also consider the space vehicles occupy on the highway. Just 2
individual drivers in their SUVs occupy as much space as a bus.

jmcquown wrote:
Dee Dee wrote:
"T" wrote in message
. ..
Yes, RI had trackless trolleys that were electric. We traded that for
the damned diesel burners.

Don't you need fuel to produce electric?
Dee Dee

Water can easily be used to produce electricity.

Jill

I live off a large river, which has a canal (built back in the 1850's)
running parallel to it which was harnessed to power *many* factories in
its time. Even today one old factory has been turned into trendy loft
apartments gets all its electricity from the water generated turbines in
the basement.

In article ,
"jmcquown" wrote:

Dee Dee wrote:
"T" wrote in message
. ..

Yes, RI had trackless trolleys that were electric. We traded that for
the damned diesel burners.


Don't you need fuel to produce electric?
Dee Dee

Water can easily be used to produce electricity.

Jill

Very true. :-)
I've seen a few recent articles on that.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down." -- Steve Rothstein

"Omelet" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"jmcquown" wrote:

Dee Dee wrote:
"T" wrote in message
. ..

Yes, RI had trackless trolleys that were electric. We traded that for
the damned diesel burners.


Don't you need fuel to produce electric?
Dee Dee

Water can easily be used to produce electricity.

Jill

Very true. :-)
I've seen a few recent articles on that.
--
Peace, Om

It was a rhetorical question. I know that other things can be used to
produce electricity; but my statment went to 'fuel' as such; I know that to
produce electricity, it can be in a number of different ways.
Dee Dee

Peter A wrote:
In article ,
says...
Water can easily be used to produce electricity.

Jill

Very true. :-)
I've seen a few recent articles on that.


Water CANNOT be easily used to produce electricity except in a few
locations that have the flow and the drop in elevation to make
hydroelectric possible. Then you have the environmental and social
problems that always occur when you dam a river - displacement of
long- time land owners, submersion of historic and cultural sites,
blockade of fish spawning runs, and so on.

Hydroelectric has a lot of advantages, but it is not without problems.

As does relying on fossil fuels to produce the same thing. Anything has
it's problems.

Jill

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:48:49 -0500, "jmcquown"
wrote:

Peter A wrote:
In article ,
says...
Water can easily be used to produce electricity.

Jill

Very true. :-)
I've seen a few recent articles on that.


Water CANNOT be easily used to produce electricity except in a few
locations that have the flow and the drop in elevation to make
hydroelectric possible. Then you have the environmental and social
problems that always occur when you dam a river - displacement of
long- time land owners, submersion of historic and cultural sites,
blockade of fish spawning runs, and so on.

Hydroelectric has a lot of advantages, but it is not without problems.

As does relying on fossil fuels to produce the same thing. Anything has
it's problems.

I am not a smoker, so I've ignored this thread. Don't know why I
opened it up now. The elephant in the room is.... NOO-KEW-LAR powah.
It's scary sh*t. All others are mere blips on the environmental radar
screen.
--

History is a vast early warning system
Norman Cousins