| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Oink Oink; Holy Christ! - We are pigs | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 19 2006, 08:51 AM (796 Views) | |
| Bernard | Apr 19 2006, 10:24 PM Post #26 |
|
Senior Carp
|
The good life means being with friends whom you cherish. It doesn't matter if you get to them in a puddle-jumper or pogo stick! And it doesn't matter if it takes an hour or 48 hours because life is about experience and the process. |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Apr 19 2006, 11:24 PM Post #27 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Aqua, On the issue of urban area energy usage versus rural area energy usage on a per-capita basis, would it not make sense to expect an urbanite to use LESS energy than a rural resident? The typical American urbanite would likely have a smaller living quarter to heat/cool and take mass transit vehicle for transportation (hence transport related energy usage is amortized), and can usually buy stuff and get services from his vicinity. A rural resident would likely have bigger houses to heat/cool, usually have no access to mass transit system, and would have to travel far (burn more gas) to get to places where he can buy stuff and get services. What am I missing? |
![]() |
|
| Christopher T | Apr 20 2006, 05:38 AM Post #28 |
|
Junior Carp
|
Bernard, I'd love to see you on a pogo-stick. You are absolutely 100% right on the money...
|
![]() |
|
| kenny | Apr 20 2006, 06:01 AM Post #29 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
|
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Apr 20 2006, 06:20 AM Post #30 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
If you're talking about individuals, I can see that argument. But I meant more of the land use side of things. Urban "areas" need a ton more energy than rural ones. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Nina | Apr 20 2006, 06:33 AM Post #31 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Unless the rural ones are agricultural, in Arizona. Converting agricultural land to suburban bedroom community here leads to a net reduction in water use and pollution. This isn't typically "urban" development, though. Go figure. I was surprised myself. |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Apr 20 2006, 06:35 AM Post #32 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Well that's because most (if not all) of the suburban and urban areas in Arizona probably shouldn't exist in the first place. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Nina | Apr 20 2006, 06:49 AM Post #33 |
|
Senior Carp
|
No, they should exist, but just not the size they are. My opinion. |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Apr 20 2006, 06:59 AM Post #34 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Well I don't mean economically or ethically or anything, I just mean naturally; if we didn't mess so much with the natural order of things, those towns and cities couldn't possibly sustain themsevles. I'm not saying this is bad, just pointing out human intervention had a lot to do with development over there. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 20 2006, 08:04 AM Post #35 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
How can you have a town at all without human intervention? |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Apr 20 2006, 08:47 AM Post #36 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
That's an extreme, and that's not quite what I'm suggesting. Building a town in Western PA, a place full of readily available natural resources, requires a lot less artificiality than, say, the desert. That's what I'm suggesting. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Nina | Apr 20 2006, 09:00 AM Post #37 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Actually, Phoenix is quite capable of sustaining a moderate population. Definitely NOT the huge city that it is today, without significant intervention. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 20 2006, 09:59 AM Post #38 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
As I understand it, in the 19th cent Phoenix was a riparian valley of grasslands with year round river flow, which was dammed for reservoir and hydroelectric. The water shed area is massive. Counterintuitively, as Nina mentioned, the more people move here the more land is converted from more water intensive agricultural uses. Certainly only possible with human intervention, but I don't think we are anywhere near a tipping point. However, with the growth projections over the next 15 years upto 8.5 mill people, making it the 10th most populous state, I should be buying land and looking to move somewhere else. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| maple | Apr 20 2006, 06:21 PM Post #39 |
|
Junior Carp
|
per capita oil consumption (US @ #17) primary energy consumption per capita (US @ #8) and per GDP (US @ #26) |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Apr 20 2006, 06:26 PM Post #40 |
|
Wow, very interesting stats maple! And before you Canucks get all crazy, you're only barely behind the USA... :wacko: |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Apr 20 2006, 06:57 PM Post #41 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Actually we are proabably worse energy pigs than the USA- but then we are not net importers of oil and gas and we do require quite a bit of energy during our long dark winters to keep the economy going. |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Apr 20 2006, 07:02 PM Post #42 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
Fess up, AC. A pickup with a V8 is going to sell a whole lot better in Alberta than some sort of hybrid (which, of course, will never have more than half that many cyliners). Correct? |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| maple | Apr 20 2006, 07:15 PM Post #43 |
|
Junior Carp
|
indeed |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Apr 20 2006, 07:24 PM Post #44 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
There is some statistical bracketing here since GDP does not correlate well with energy efficiency for many reasons. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Apr 20 2006, 08:22 PM Post #45 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
You bet- but at the current $1.089 a litre for regular a V6 is looking a lot more attractive. |
![]() |
|
| big al | Apr 21 2006, 07:31 AM Post #46 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Lots to chew on in those statistics. I can account for some of the items off the top of my head A lot of islands in the top oil users - they tend to use oil for electrical generation. Countries with cold climates tend to prevail closer to the top because of winter heating requirements. Countries with particularly cheap & available energy tend to float toward the top as well. Sifting all the correlations out of the mix could be an interesting exercise. Big Al |
|
Location: Western PA "jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen." -bachophile | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2









10:53 AM Jul 11