This may be a jersey thing, but from the height of the grass in the picture, does it work ?
That was the before picture.
It will run for nearly an hour on a charge, according to the book.
It acts like a vacuum for the dry leaves and doesn't stink.
I hate smelling the gas exhaust when I smoking a cheap cigar.
It's quiet, and it starts right up.
__________________ S/V Scheherazade
-----------------------
I had a dream, I was sailing, I was happy, I was even smiling. Then I looked down and saw that I was on a multi-hull and woke up suddenly in a cold sweat.
CD, for all his bloviations, cannot answer the question. Cam and other's have given him the answer and now, finally, he shows some signs of acceptance. A miracle I'd say. (g)
I'll throw my two cents in. We have to drill or we have to continue to pay the piper. It's our only option. Other options will make themselves known as time goes on and the price stays high. Again, if you're depressed that it takes so long to bring new oil fields to market just consider how much longer it takes to bring a viable and economical alternative energy source to market. It's tough to do because, while we've been working on many alternative energy sources for decades, there's about zero percentage of them that have developed to a point where they can even begin to replace that 25% of the oil we use.
CD and the government could throw 100 trillion dollars at alternative energy tomorrow and it's still take ten years to have even a minimal effect on energy use, let alone 25%. there's been more money invested and wasted on alternative energy in the last quarter century in this country than there were losing wagers on Big Brown. That doesn't mean that something won't work out in the future, or that gains were not made. What it does mean though is that we were colossally stupid in the past by spending government money on these projects instead of letting private industry do so, absorbing not only risk but reward. The only effective engine for change is the market. And at $4/gallon the market is looking real interested even in those Catalina bugs. The ones that eat waste material and excrete oil.
You can still try to answer the question if you'd like, CD, but I think the rest of us know it's unanswerable.
__________________
“Scientists are people who build the Brooklyn Bridge and then buy it.” Wm. F. Buckley, Jr.
And at $4/gallon the market is looking real interested even in those Catalina bugs. The ones that eat waste material and excrete oil.
I heard Glenn Beck talking about these this morning, something like 1/800th the size of a ant, eat wood chips and poops oil.............. I think these guys are either smoking the wood chip or smoking the poop oil, either way, at this rate of research, we'll all be fosil fuel.
I did LMAO though, GB is pretty funny in a dead serious sorta way
__________________ 1978 Tayana 37
Mother Nature, in whose lap we sit and who sustains us, sometimes eats her young
How about cutting down on the use of oil? Americans do a lot of driving ...
Not as much as they did six months ago. But even if we embarked on cutting-back miles now, it'd still take decades to achieve significant reductions. You have to understand: This country's property development model has been predicated on the availability of relatively cheap, individual transportation for... well, just about ever since the automobile was developed by Henry Ford.
My commute distance is about exactly average: 34 miles/day, round trip. My commute time is about double the average, at about 1-1/2 hours (avg. is 46 minutes). There is no public transportation between home and work. None at all. So it's either move (cannot afford to do that, in any event) or live with it.
That being said: There's lots individuals, companies and government can do to ease the pain. Individuals can stop driving over-sized, gasoline-guzzling, behemoth SUVs, vans and trucks. Individuals can stop jack-rabbit starts, screaming up to stops and then standing on the brakes, and speeding from place-to-place like their back-sides were on fire. I increased my average gas mileage from 22 MPG to 27 MPG, just by moderating my driving habits.. And that's w/o even entering hyper-driving territory.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: As long as I continue to see a lot of people driving big, gasoline-slurping vehicles with only one individual in them, esp. doing things like greatly exceeding the speed limit, jack-rabbit-starting, rushing up to red traffic lights, weaving through traffic, etc., I'll continue to believe gasoline is too cheap.
Companies can implement "green initiatives" to reduce their carbon footprint. Ship by train, instead of air or truck, when possible. It is incredibly inefficient to ship large amounts of goods long distances by fleets of trucks, rather than by train. Speaking of trucks: I will continue to believe diesel fuel is still too cheap while I continue to see trucks sitting idling for long times, with nobody in or around them.
What governments can do is things like synchronizing the damn traffic signals. Even simple synchronizations will help. It is mind-bogglingly stupid to have a light turn green, only to be stopped at a traffic light just a couple hundred yards away.
CD, for all his bloviations, cannot answer the question. Cam and other's have given him the answer and now, finally, he shows some signs of acceptance. A miracle I'd say. (g)
I'll throw my two cents in. We have to drill or we have to continue to pay the piper. It's our only option. Other options will make themselves known as time goes on and the price stays high. Again, if you're depressed that it takes so long to bring new oil fields to market just consider how much longer it takes to bring a viable and economical alternative energy source to market. It's tough to do because, while we've been working on many alternative energy sources for decades, there's about zero percentage of them that have developed to a point where they can even begin to replace that 25% of the oil we use.
CD and the government could throw 100 trillion dollars at alternative energy tomorrow and it's still take ten years to have even a minimal effect on energy use, let alone 25%. there's been more money invested and wasted on alternative energy in the last quarter century in this country than there were losing wagers on Big Brown. That doesn't mean that something won't work out in the future, or that gains were not made. What it does mean though is that we were colossally stupid in the past by spending government money on these projects instead of letting private industry do so, absorbing not only risk but reward. The only effective engine for change is the market. And at $4/gallon the market is looking real interested even in those Catalina bugs. The ones that eat waste material and excrete oil.
You can still try to answer the question if you'd like, CD, but I think the rest of us know it's unanswerable.
Complete hogwash. Once again, you seem to missunderstand the very basics about which you talk.
Of course, I am sure Time is wrong too, like the USGS, the oil comapnies, US DOE, US DOI, US MMT, and all the consultants. But you Sway have it all figured out: Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay less. SOunds simple - but ain't gonna happen. It cannot happen. To quote a famous president: READ MY LIPS - IT IS NOT POSSIBLE!
Cam, Tom, Sway, go read the article and let's discuss. That is exactly the point I have been making here.
And don't forget the challenge I have given you. It is a 2 way street. Don't put me on the research challenge of the century and sit back while I do all the work. I am working on mine.... are you? Your turn too. All I have done is given you the same challenge you have given me. Incidentally, mine is at least possible (at a great cost) where yours is not.
With that logic, would it not seem more reasonable to pursue the option that is at least possible than to continue to pursue an option that is certainly not possible??
- CD
PS I will have your question answered soon.
__________________
Sailnet Adminstrator & Moderator (at large soon)!!
CD,
I read the Time article and it does not change my opinion that we should both drill for oil now and persue other technologies in parralel. If all we get is the pittance claimed in the Time article I'll take it rather than ignore it. And being the eternal optimist that I am, I still believe the actual reserves will be determined to be greatly in excess of the current estimates. I just don't see the logic that says ignore the oil, no matter what the quantity, and spend that money on other technologies. We have the capacity to do both so why not, particularly considering the lag time before any other technology will really be available to us commercially.
The Trotskyite Texan appears to think it unworth drilling for US oil. I'd remind him that, had President Clinton not vetoed congressional approval to drill in ANWR, we'd be pumping and refining that oil today.
I'm of two minds about drilling in the ANWR. To be honest: I'd rather see us reduce our dependence on oil as an energy source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailaway21
It's time to get on with doing the same offshore of California, Florida, and Michigan.
What CA and FL do with their coastlines is up to them, IMO. But I am vehemently opposed to drilling in the Great Lakes. Period. The Great Lakes are more than sufficiently polluted as it is, and, quite honestly, the oil industry has not shown itself to behave in environmentally responsible ways unless forced to at the point of a gun.
Have you ever personally experienced the results of an oil spill, Sway? I have. The environment impact aside: It's messy. Really, really messy. My future wife and I were vacationing on Grand Canary Island, a long time ago, when what we could only assume was an oil freighter somewhere off the coast dumped or lost part of (?) its load. The two of us found out when we went for a brief cool-off dip in the ocean, about the same time as the local fishermen found out when they pulled in a couple of their nets.
Jesus, what a mess
I can only imagine, in my worst nightmares, what such an incident would do to the Great Lakes, a massive closed-water system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailaway21
The Gulf coast is littered with oil rigs pumping offshore oil but the rest of the US ignores that because it's off the coasts of La., Miss., and Texas and we know what kind of people live there, right?
Nonsense. First of all: That is relatively open waters. But still: What is one of the biggest concerns every time a major hurricane comes through those areas? Yup: Oil drilling platforms. So let's compound the risk by adding them off the coasts of Florida (high hurricane risk), off the coasts of California (earthquake and tsunami risks) and in the Great Lakes (tornadic activity)?
All so people can continue expending fossil fuels foolishly?
I'm thinking... um... no. In fact: Not just "no," but hell no!
I'll make you a deal: Get the abundance of gas-guzzlers off the road. Get people to start driving what they do drive more sensibly. Get people to turn their thermostats down to a reasonably sane level in wintertime, and turn the A/C up to a reasonably sane level in the summertime, get them to stop throwing metric butt-loads of recyclable materials into landfills and incinerators, get... well, in summary: Get people to at least moderate wasteful habits some, and I'll consider changing my view of drilling in environmentally- and resource-sensitive areas like the Great Lakes.
Good luck with that. We have a neighbour, wonderful lady, actually, who lives three doors down from us. When she comes to visit, she drives her car. I am not making this up. There was a discussion on a local talk radio show a couple years ago where a company that had laid off some people had given them a "10 Tips To Save Money" flyer as part of their severance documentation. Amongst the suggestions was "When showering: Turn off the water while soaping-up, rather than just let it run." The show's hosts and many of the callers found that suggestion outrageous and insulting. Eh? I do that all the time, and I'm gainfully employed. What sense does it make to pour water down the drain uselessly?
These attitudes are typical amongst Americans. Using resources is one, thing, but we are a nation of energy and resource wasters, Sway.
I used to be a libertarian, leaning toward conservativism. But my "fellow" Americans' profligate wastefulness is turning me into an eco-Nazi .
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailaway21
It's condescending in the extreme to think that those citizens are any less environmentally conscious as the good residents of those other coastal states.
Is it? If the citizens of those areas allow risky behaviour and others don't, to what would you attribute it, then?
CD,
I read the Time article and it does not change my opinion that we should both drill for oil now and persue other technologies in parralel. If all we get is the pittance claimed in the Time article I'll take it rather than ignore it. And being the eternal optimist that I am, I still believe the actual reserves will be determined to be greatly in excess of the current estimates. I just don't see the logic that says ignore the oil, no matter what the quantity, and spend that money on other technologies. We have the capacity to do both so why not, particularly considering the lag time before any other technology will really be available to us commercially.
You have the same lag time (or more) in drilling for oil. Don't you see that. Drilling now means a pittiful savings in 15+ years!! And, using that article as a reference, if you could wave your wand and suddenly have it pumping at full cap this very instant, it would make a whopping $.03-.04/gallon difference?? Unfortunately, even by allowing drilling now (everywhere, gulf, ANWR, Bakken) - you are 15+ years before getting a drop out of it.
BP has seen the light. They have moved off oil and are investing in other energy sources. Chevron has seen the light. THey are following suit... as are almost every other major oil company in the world (except Exxon).
Oil and gas companies are in the business of making money - period. Don't believe me? Go fill up your car. They WILL remain in business - but will be forced to change priorities as markets change. Opening up those reserves to drilling will do NOTHING for you and I and will only help the oil companies. THey are the ONLY ones that benefit out of that because it is imposible for them to pump anything anywhere near enough for us to realize the benefit. This is not about environmentalism, it is about common sense.
The price pressures are building on them. Supply is becoming critical. The outlook (china and india) is shocking. The supply end is not a pretty picture.
So pretend you are on the board of an oil company (just the example I am using). You have hundreds of billions in the bank. You are doing awesome right now, but it is your responsibility to your share holders to maintain a high return for their investment. However, you have a real issue about the future because your wells are begining to dry up and the world is reaching (probably already reached) maximum production. What do you do?
I would push hard to open up more areas to drilling - like ANWR and the gulf. Why? Because it is the quickest, easiest way for me (my company to make a buck). That is what you are seeing right now. However, that is not (as I have proved... over and over) going to make any difference for anyone but the oil companies. DO you understand that? THe oil companies, and ONLY the oil companies, will realize that benefit (unless you plan to go out of retirement and go work a rig in Alaska).
HOWEVER....
If those oil reserves are not opened up - what are your other options? You realize you are in the business of energy. You will focus your r&d and investment in staying in business (which means alternative sources of energy) be they coal, or solar, or geothermal, or whatever.
Keep them closed. Put more pressure on them to help someone but themselves. You, as a consumer, will realize NOTHING out of drilling here. NOTHING. Neither will your children or grandchildren. However, by forcing that investment (via govt or private) into other options that are viable, economically feasable, and sustainable - your kids and grand kids (and maybe even you) WILL realize it.
One direction is certain to fail. The other direction has at least the possibility to succeed. It is folly to follow a direction that is certain to fail in place of one that might not.
- CD
__________________
Sailnet Adminstrator & Moderator (at large soon)!!
.
