XPost: alt.autos.toyota, rec.autos.driving, alt.society.liberalism   
   XPost: alt.fan.michael-moore   
   From: russotto@grace.speakeasy.net   
      
   In article ,   
   dr_jeff   wrote:   
   >On 11/27/10 10:10 PM, Matthew Russotto wrote:   
   >> In article,   
   >> dr_jeff  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> Anyway, I don't hope that nuclear energy takes off. It is not 100%   
   >>> clean. Nothing is. Unless we can get fusion to work in a big way,   
   >>> nuclear should provide a large part of our energy. Unfortunately, we   
   >>> will have to build a new electrical grid backbone.   
   >>   
   >> Nothing will ever be 100% clean.  Not even if fusion were made practical.   
   >> Not even if aneutronic fusion was made practical.   
   >>   
   >>> The best way to cut down our use of fossil fuels in the near-term is   
   >>> conservation.   
   >>   
   >> Staying in one place, shivering, in the dark.  No thanks.   
   >   
   >Really? How about just shutting of the electricity to your TV and other   
   >electronics at night, instead of shutting them "off"? When you shut a TV   
   >or other device, it is not truly off. Instead, it still uses   
   >electricity. Cutting off the electricity fixes the problem.   
      
   Straining at gnats.   
      
   >How about making sure air leaks, perhaps around electrical outlets, are   
   >sealed off?   
      
   Working on it, as I bought a 50-year-old home recently.  But I can   
   only do that once.   
      
   >How about making sure tires are properly inflated on our car and not   
   >making jack-rabbit starts and stops?   
      
   The 1970's called, they'd like their advice back.  Acceleration just   
   short of wide-open throttle is actually more efficient than gradual   
   acceleration, in modern cars.  The problem that this advice was meant   
   to solve disappeared with the carbeurator.  As for the tires, their   
   effect on fuel economy is real but often overstated.   
      
   >nHow about making all your errands   
   >on trip instead of spreading them out so that the engine stays warm and   
   >is more fuel-efficient?   
      
   Love to, because it's more time efficient.  It is often, however, not   
   practical.   
      
   >> Sure, cutting my energy use by X% won't do that.  But cutting it by X%   
   >> every time the subject comes up will.   
   >   
   >We're not talking about making people suffer.   
      
   No, but you sure intend to do it.   
   --   
   The problem with socialism is there's always   
   someone with less ability and more need.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)