Manfred,
Truth to tell, I'm not all that familiar with public transit in London. I've
taken the "tube" on occasion but my visits to the UK have been relatively
few. I'm more familiar with Paris and would think that, without public
transit, the city would grind to a halt. As to disposing of nuclear waste,
technically not very difficult but socially not acceptable. People seem to
prefer smog.
Chuck
----------
From: Manfred Brown[SMTP:m-brown@dircon.co.uk]
Sent: Monday April 10, 2000 2:41 AM
To: 'Vandergraaf, Chuck'
Cc: 'Morgan List'
Subject: RE: US Gasoline Pricing
Chuck,
I agree with most of what you say, although there are many who might
argue
with your comment that public transport works in London.
I think a combination of your first two options are the way forward,
the
second naturally leading to public transport. I suspect we will end
up with
fuel cell or hybrid vehicles and save fossil fuels for chemical
feedstocks
rather than burning them. I am also pro nuclear but it has a huge
bad press
to get over. My usual arguments tend to be along the lines that
looking
after a relatively small amount of nuclear waste is preferable to
destroying
the forests of northern Europe with acid rain.
I see the soap box looming so will stop there.
Manfred.
+8, London, although writing from Kaohsiung, Taiwan, where the air
pollution
is so bad that most days I can't see the mountain that's about 2
miles from
here.
-----Original Message-----
From: Vandergraaf, Chuck [mailto:vandergraaft@aecl.ca]
Sent: 9 April 2000 18:32
To: 'Manfred Brown'
Cc: 'Morgan List'
Subject: RE: US Gasoline Pricing
Manfred,
I had assumed that you sent the cost comparison out in jest.
However, the
thrust of the comparison seemed to me to be that, even with the
recent price
increases, gasoline is still a bargain.
I agree with you that increased gasoline prices, either as a result
of
increased taxation or as a result of gauging by OPEC should result
in some
sort of conservation. However, if this is the case, there must be a
fair
bit of time lag in the response: the sale of SUVs appears to
continue
unabated in North America. You may well be correct in that high
fuel taxes
reduce other taxes. In Canada, the revenue from fuel sales goes
into
general revenue and not to fix up the highways.
Seems to me that there are only a limited number of options to
reduce
gasoline consumption for day-to-day use, switch to smaller cars,
form car
pools, or drive less. Of these options, the first one should be the
simplest, provided the car will have sufficient carrying capacity.
The
second option is, IMHO, the best: car pools with five members can
reduce the
fuel consumption by a factor close to five. The last option is only
viable
if there are alternative modes of transport available or unless one
wants to
move closer to work.
In North America, most of the long distance transport is fossil fuel
(diesel) based. Virtually all trains are diesel-electric and trucks
are
diesel powered. According to the news yesterday, 20% of the
pollutants are
generated by truck transport. One way to reduce this would be to go
to
electrically powered trains and use either hydro power or nuclear
power. To
make public transit more palatable, the population density in the
cities has
to increase. Public transit works in Paris and London but not in
Los
Angeles or Tucson.
I'm in the nuclear energy business but, for the last 10-15 years,
have been
more occupied with finding environmentally safe ways to bury the
waste
rather than finding neat ways to produce power by the neutron.
Chuck Vandergraaf
Pinawa, MB
> ----------
> From: Manfred Brown[SMTP:m-brown@dircon.co.uk]
> Reply To: Manfred Brown
> Sent: Sunday April 09, 2000 1:52 AM
> To: 'Morgan List'
> Subject: RE: US Gasoline Pricing
>
> Chuck,
>
> I sent these out for fun but am prepared to enter the debate
seriously.
>
> Most people see the low gasoline prices in the USA, a quarter of
the price
> in the UK, and laugh at some people in the wealthiest nation in
the world
> bitch about how high the prices are. Personally I agree with high
taxes on
> gasoline for environmental reasons with the perhaps naïve
assumption that
> his will mean lower taxes elsewhere. I drive a +8 and am willing
to pay
> for
> the pleasure but use a more fuel efficient car for shopping, etc..
Global
> warming and diminishing fossil fuel reserves are realities of the
world in
> which we live and to bury ones head in the ground is sheer folly -
and I
> work in the oil industry!
>
> With respect,
>
> Manfred.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-morgans@autox.team.net
[mailto:owner-morgans@autox.team.net]
> On
> Behalf Of Vandergraaf, Chuck
> Sent: 8 April 2000 17:33
> To: 'Manfred Brown'
> Cc: 'Morgan List'
> Subject: RE: US Gasoline Pricing
>
> Manfred,
>
> Yeah, I've seen these figures before but other than being cute,
they miss
> the point, IMHO. Most of the items that are mentioned can
potentially be
> poured down somebody's throat and need to be of high quality.
Others
> (brake
> fluid, for example) are also of high quality but are used
sparingly. I
> would
> imagine that ink for ink jet printers ranks up there as well. When
I drove
> from Calgary to Pinawa a couple of years ago in my Toyota MR2, I
averaged
> 100 kph over the ~1450 km distance. I was using ~7.3 litres per
100 km
> (39
> mpg). I could not possibly consume any of the potable fluids
mentioned at
> that rate, not sustained over 14 hours, anyway. White Out is
probably an
> endangered species. As for Evian, there are alternatives "L'eau
du
> faucet"
> is good enough for me."
>
> I'm not saying that gasoline prices are too high. Gas prices are
just
> very
> visible and gas is bought often enough to remind the buyer.
Considering
> the
> wide range in prices in the world, it's no wonder we think we're
being
> fleeced! Governments are not likely to step in and government
officials
> must be rubbing their collective hands with glee: every increase
results
> on
> more of our hard-earned money making a one-way trip to their
coffers.
>
> Chuck Vandergraaf
>
> ----------
> From: Manfred Brown[SMTP:m-brown@dircon.co.uk]
> Sent: Saturday April 08, 2000 5:01 AM
> To: 'Morgan List'
> Subject: US Gasoline Pricing
>
> Below is something I was sent from the US. Puts the price of
> gasoline into
> perspective.
> Manfred
> 1987 +8
>
> Gas Out
> -------
>
> More thoughts on the proposed "Gas-out" April 7-9. Here are
a few
> things
> that the magazine Autoweek has brought to the public's
attention.
> And
> thanks to subscriber Christine for passing it along to us!
>
> .... This is what it costs to buy a gallon of.....
>
> Diet Snapple - 16oz for $1.29 = $10.32 a gallon
>
> Lipton Iced Tea - 16 oz for $1.19 = $9.52 a gallon
>
> Gatorade - 20 oz for $1.59 = $10.17 a gallon
>
> Ocean Spray - 16 oz for $1.25 = $10.00 a gallon
>
> Evian water - 9 oz for $1.49 = $21.19 a gallon. $21.19 FOR
WATER!!
> Maybe
> that's the reason "Evian" spelled backward is "Naive" ...
>
> STP brake fluid - 12 oz for $3.15 = $33.60 a gallon
>
> Scope - 1.5 oz for $0.99 = $84.84 a gallon
>
> Vick's Nyquil - 6 oz for $8.35 = $178.13 a gallon (Of
course, you
> are paying
> for all that alcohol, too).
>
> But here's the real kicker!!
> White Out - 0.7 oz for $1.39 = $254.17 a gallon (i.e Tipex
in the
> UK)
>
> So next time you're at the pump, be glad your car doesn't
run on
> White
> Out!!!
>
>
>
|