Inspired by T Boone Pickens

I know I'm hijacking my own thread, but I didn't feel like starting an MPG thread.

I drove up tonight - 275 miles. In my wife's civic. When I filled up in Warrensburg - cost me 20 bucks to go from Central NJ to that spot. - I had gone 240.6 miles and the car took 4.98 gallons. The math on that is over 48 mpg.

I couldn't believe it. Best I had ever done in her car was 42. I kept it at 65, or the speed limit when I could. Normally I set the cruise on 68 and stomp on it when necessary or I feel like it. This time I was a light as I could be. It took me about 20 mins longer than usual, on a five hr ride.

It''s a pain in the ass to concentrate the whole drive, and really probably saved me only 5 bucks. And...with regard to skiing... I can't easily use the civic on our adk driveway in the winter.

The pumps could have clicked out in my "favor." But even at 45mpg that's pretty cool. That's borderline hybrid mileage.

One advantage on the highway I noticed...EVERYONE was using cruise control or driving easy and the heavy volume spots kept moving, so I never got stuck.
 
Harvey44":312ype70 said:
And....it looks like generating the power is the easy part:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/busin ... ref=slogin
Click to expand...

Looks like a typically lovely day for a swim in Upstate NY:

27grid01_600.jpg


Gotta run now, Sharon's trying to hit me! :lol:
 
Tony Crocker":heu5gd8x said:
As a Californian I can appreciate the paranoia about offshore drilling. It took 9 months to stop the Santa Barbara blowout in 1969. But at some point we have to move on. I suspect oil technology has become safer, as over 100 wells were knocked out by Katrina and I don't recall hearing of a big mess like Santa Barbara.
Click to expand...

Well, wells... Admin made a response regarding Tony's statement in the appropriate thread today. I decided to bump this quote instead. :stir:

We are not all perfect, sometimes kids and/or parents priorities are different or have to make do with want they can. Notice that I only skied 3 times since the end of March, it's not because I don't want to. Kids also have their own stuff + Mount Washington is a hell longer to get to from Ottawa than Waterbury.
 
I recall expressing that opinion about oil drilling a few times; I didn't recall I had expressed it in print. My impression was that the risk of tanker spills was higher than the risk from a blowout.

I'm not sure how long it has been since a major well blowout, close to 30 years I think. People get complacent, then careless. It's safe to say there will be more regulation/oversight in the future.

I saw a list of "worst oil spills." Top ten (before this) were all before 1992. Double-hulling the tankers after Exxon Valdez probably had something to do with that.
 
I seem to recall T Boone pulling the plug on his plan not all that long after this thread.

Tony Crocker":3nnc36y8 said:
I saw a list of "worst oil spills." Top ten (before this) were all before 1992.
Click to expand...

At least as interesting (for me) would be the depth of the wells for any offshore spills/blowouts in that list. This one being a mile deep in water, yet alone the drilling down to the oil.
 
Tony Crocker":1y9giw3l said:
EMSC":1y9giw3l said:
This one being a mile deep in water
Click to expand...
I agree this was the key underestimated risk factor.
Click to expand...

One mile deep...Offshore is in 2.5km (1mile=1.6km) off Newfoundland plus there is still presume for offshore in the Beaufort Sea (Arctic). Yikes!!! Of course, our government is saying that Canada's safety standard don't need to be look at. ](*,)
 
I've seen some of these turbines up close on the Tug Hill region of NYS (probably where the swimming pool picture was taken), and they are large, but I don't find them offensive at all.

What I do find disturbing is the fierce opposition to these towers by people who aren't forthcoming with facts. In a small lakeshore town in NYS, off Lake Ontario, a 'questionnaire' obviously biased against the towers was circulated by the local town government. There was some pretty clearly negative language in the document, referring to 'industrial wind farms', and asking the responder to choose between noise levels which were 'annoying' and my favorite - 'or worse'.

I attempted to inquire about the status of a proposed wind energy project in the area and the local government basically told me to mind my own business, that it doesn't really matter what I think. (I own 50 acres in this town, btw.)

The village of Cape Vincent, NY (on the St. Lawrence river) voted down a wind farm because they didn't want to see them. The Canadians promptly installed 86 towers on Wolf Island, right across the river from the Cape. I'm ashamed of and disappointed by the Americans, and proud of the Canadians.

Further, there's been some recent attempts to propose offshore wind farms in lake Ontario. The communities at the eastern end of the lake are all opposed, while the ones at the western end of the lake are more neutral or in favor, from what I've read. I can tell you that the eastern end of the lake has far less economic activity than does the western end, so I found their refusal somewhat perplexing and short-sighted.

As I said, I've been next to these units when they're operating, and I don't think the sound (of the transmission, I think), is at all offensive. What I do find offensive is our reliance on unfriendly governments to supply oil. What's even sadder is the proliferation of monster SUVs driven by soccer moms to the local mall.

Sorry for the ranting and rambling. I guess the Deepwater Horizon disaster is getting me riled.

Tom
 
At some point political will/leadership is going to be necessary to overcome the BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyplace) wing of the environmental movement. In California we are now dealing with environmental opposition to solar power plants in the Mojave Desert! ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)
 
I agree with your point that political will is necessary.

I don't have the facts, but I'm not sure it's environmentalists that oppose a lot of these projects. In NYS, the wind opposition seems to be coming from people that don't otherwise seem to be environmentalists. In Watertown NY, in the area which is so opposed to wind power, the local paper advocates backyard boilers, which are real soot producers. They fought DEC law limiting outdoor burning. (Many residents would smolder their trash outdoors in barrels.) The biggest tourist attractions for the area are sport fishing and snowmobiling, both gasoline-intensive activities, and no one is suggesting that they're less than desirable. The argument that they want to protect bats and birds seems a little specious to me.

Tom Golisano opposes wind power anywhere he can see it from his homes in Mendon or Canandaigua Lake. His money buys a lot of cooperation.

It looks like some pretty selfish NIMBY-ism, in my view. I think we have a responsibility to be part of the solution if we can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top