Europe to be totally carfree in less than 40 years--Why not US?
03-27-11, 08:40 AM
#51
Senior Member
What I see here in Utah, we could take 60% of the traffic off the road if we removed one element.
The big car with one person driving 50 to 75 miles each way to work, we have too much of this here.
Our government makes us do it, we have public transportation and when I ask people, "Why don't you ride the bus or train?"
I get a good answer, It is cheaper for my Parts guy to drive his 8 mpg 1 ton truck than to ride the train, it is cheaper for my son to drive his grand AM than ride the bus.
Here is why, My government taxes me, they take the $$ and build big freeways and highways and expensive traffic signals and so on.
What if? What if, instead, take the $$ and give me subsidized Trains and Buses, AND bicycle lanes, then we could ride.
Use the labor force to build smart ways to get around. I need to add, bicycle travel in Utah, is ,,,,a car dodging exercise, and freeways dominate town to town commute.
The big car with one person driving 50 to 75 miles each way to work, we have too much of this here.
Our government makes us do it, we have public transportation and when I ask people, "Why don't you ride the bus or train?"
I get a good answer, It is cheaper for my Parts guy to drive his 8 mpg 1 ton truck than to ride the train, it is cheaper for my son to drive his grand AM than ride the bus.
Here is why, My government taxes me, they take the $$ and build big freeways and highways and expensive traffic signals and so on.
What if? What if, instead, take the $$ and give me subsidized Trains and Buses, AND bicycle lanes, then we could ride.
Use the labor force to build smart ways to get around. I need to add, bicycle travel in Utah, is ,,,,a car dodging exercise, and freeways dominate town to town commute.
03-27-11, 08:50 AM
#52
Membership Not Required
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: On the road-USA
Posts: 16,855
Bikes: Giant Excursion, Raleigh Sports, Raleigh R.S.W. Compact, Motobecane? and about 20 more! OMG
Likes: 0
Liked 16 Times
in
15 Posts
What I see here in Utah, we could take 60% of the traffic off the road if we removed one element.
The big car with one person driving 50 to 75 miles each way to work, we have too much of this here.
Our government makes us do it, we have public transportation and when I ask people, "Why don't you ride the bus or train?"
I get a good answer, It is cheaper for my Parts guy to drive his 8 mpg 1 ton truck than to ride the train, it is cheaper for my son to drive his grand AM than ride the bus.
Here is why, My government taxes me, they take the $$ and build big freeways and highways and expensive traffic signals and so on.
What if? What if, instead, take the $$ and give me subsidized Trains and Buses, AND bicycle lanes, then we could ride.
Use the labor force to build smart ways to get around. I need to add, bicycle travel in Utah, is ,,,,a car dodging exercise, and freeways dominate town to town commute.
The big car with one person driving 50 to 75 miles each way to work, we have too much of this here.
Our government makes us do it, we have public transportation and when I ask people, "Why don't you ride the bus or train?"
I get a good answer, It is cheaper for my Parts guy to drive his 8 mpg 1 ton truck than to ride the train, it is cheaper for my son to drive his grand AM than ride the bus.
Here is why, My government taxes me, they take the $$ and build big freeways and highways and expensive traffic signals and so on.
What if? What if, instead, take the $$ and give me subsidized Trains and Buses, AND bicycle lanes, then we could ride.
Use the labor force to build smart ways to get around. I need to add, bicycle travel in Utah, is ,,,,a car dodging exercise, and freeways dominate town to town commute.
Aaron
__________________
Webshots is bailing out, if you find any of my posts with corrupt picture files and want to see them corrected please let me know. :(
ISO: A late 1980's Giant Iguana MTB frameset (or complete bike) 23" Red with yellow graphics.
"Cycling should be a way of life, not a hobby.
RIDE, YOU FOOL, RIDE!"_Nicodemus
"Steel: nearly a thousand years of metallurgical development
Aluminum: barely a hundred
Which one would you rather have under your butt at 30mph?"_krazygluon
Webshots is bailing out, if you find any of my posts with corrupt picture files and want to see them corrected please let me know. :(
ISO: A late 1980's Giant Iguana MTB frameset (or complete bike) 23" Red with yellow graphics.
"Cycling should be a way of life, not a hobby.
RIDE, YOU FOOL, RIDE!"_Nicodemus
"Steel: nearly a thousand years of metallurgical development
Aluminum: barely a hundred
Which one would you rather have under your butt at 30mph?"_krazygluon
03-27-11, 09:07 AM
#53
2 Fat 2 Furious
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Posts: 3,996
Bikes: 2009 Specialized Rockhopper Comp Disc, 2009 Specialized Tricross Sport RIP
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
I'm not saying we should not transition to every extent possible to renewable energy- we don't have a choice. But when we do, the current energy consumption rates CANNOT be sustained. Automobiles cannot exist in a system based on renewables- not even what is known as a totally 'solar powered' automobile. Trace the origins of that solar car, and a hell of a lot more energy went into building/maintaining the car, and the infrastructure supporting it, than will ever be retrieved from it over its lifetime.
Taking very simplistic figures, if a single person weighs 100kg and their car weighs 900kg then 90% of the energy used is to move the metal box with only 10% being used to move the occupant. Turn that very light 900kg car into a 1900kg SUV and now only 5% of the energy used transports the driver.
For as long as SUVs weighing several tons use the same roads it's easy to see why people don't want to use lightweight vehicles - if I'm going to be involved in a collision I'd rather be the one in the solid metal box - but at the same time if we could strip away a lot of the metal we could end up with vehicles that can get around at a sensible pace and use energy far more efficiently.
One beauty of a bicycle is that it weighs so little. So instead of needing an engine to transport my 100kg frame within a 1400kg car, I can use my legs to transport my 100kg frame on a 15kg vehicle. Now somewhere around 85% of the energy used is transporting me - the vehicle represents a small part of the energy and so a much less powerful engine will work just fine.
It all comes back to the equation F=ma. If we can reduce m then much less F is needed to produce the same a. And there's a lot of scope to reduce m when we're starting with monstrous great SUVs.
03-27-11, 10:32 AM
#54
If we can get away from the idea that "automobile" = "several tons of metal" we might be in with a chance.
Taking very simplistic figures, if a single person weighs 100kg and their car weighs 900kg then 90% of the energy used is to move the metal box with only 10% being used to move the occupant. Turn that very light 900kg car into a 1900kg SUV and now only 5% of the energy used transports the driver.
For as long as SUVs weighing several tons use the same roads it's easy to see why people don't want to use lightweight vehicles - if I'm going to be involved in a collision I'd rather be the one in the solid metal box - but at the same time if we could strip away a lot of the metal we could end up with vehicles that can get around at a sensible pace and use energy far more efficiently.
One beauty of a bicycle is that it weighs so little. So instead of needing an engine to transport my 100kg frame within a 1400kg car, I can use my legs to transport my 100kg frame on a 15kg vehicle. Now somewhere around 85% of the energy used is transporting me - the vehicle represents a small part of the energy and so a much less powerful engine will work just fine.
It all comes back to the equation F=ma. If we can reduce m then much less F is needed to produce the same a. And there's a lot of scope to reduce m when we're starting with monstrous great SUVs.
Taking very simplistic figures, if a single person weighs 100kg and their car weighs 900kg then 90% of the energy used is to move the metal box with only 10% being used to move the occupant. Turn that very light 900kg car into a 1900kg SUV and now only 5% of the energy used transports the driver.
For as long as SUVs weighing several tons use the same roads it's easy to see why people don't want to use lightweight vehicles - if I'm going to be involved in a collision I'd rather be the one in the solid metal box - but at the same time if we could strip away a lot of the metal we could end up with vehicles that can get around at a sensible pace and use energy far more efficiently.
One beauty of a bicycle is that it weighs so little. So instead of needing an engine to transport my 100kg frame within a 1400kg car, I can use my legs to transport my 100kg frame on a 15kg vehicle. Now somewhere around 85% of the energy used is transporting me - the vehicle represents a small part of the energy and so a much less powerful engine will work just fine.
It all comes back to the equation F=ma. If we can reduce m then much less F is needed to produce the same a. And there's a lot of scope to reduce m when we're starting with monstrous great SUVs.
03-27-11, 11:46 AM
#55
2 Fat 2 Furious
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Posts: 3,996
Bikes: 2009 Specialized Rockhopper Comp Disc, 2009 Specialized Tricross Sport RIP
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
That said if we used the existing internal combustion engine in a very small and light vehicle we'd be able to get very respectable fuel economy.
03-27-11, 12:00 PM
#56
Yep, as long as it has a decent range, fast recharge and weatherproofing it can work. One big trouble with electric vehicles is the time it takes to recharge - if I want to drive a long distance it doesn't work if I can only do it in 100 mile chunks and then stop to recharge for 12 hours.
That said if we used the existing internal combustion engine in a very small and light vehicle we'd be able to get very respectable fuel economy.
That said if we used the existing internal combustion engine in a very small and light vehicle we'd be able to get very respectable fuel economy.
03-27-11, 12:24 PM
#57
2 Fat 2 Furious
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Posts: 3,996
Bikes: 2009 Specialized Rockhopper Comp Disc, 2009 Specialized Tricross Sport RIP
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
Yes, though i have great hopes that we will soon have batteries, or hypercapacitors, that will permit such fast charge, and better range as well. The infrastructure will take time to change though.There will be some interim technologies, we are seeing some of them now. We will see some small vehicles which are purely electric drive, but with a generator running at very high efficiency levels. Several of these interim solutions will appear, and some will fall by the wayside as better, or more suitable technologies come on stream. The next few years are going to see a huge number of solutions proposed, it will interesting that's for sure.
The big difference would be that if you ran out of power you could plug it in anywhere you could reach (or use a portable solar panel, or whatever else).
03-27-11, 12:40 PM
#58
If makers could standardise their batteries I can see filling stations being partly or entirely replaced with battery sellers. A new battery for one price, or trade a dead battery for a fully charged battery for a much lower price. Just like filling up with gas - pull in, a few minutes stopped, pay your money, and you're good for another 400 miles. Then the filling stations could have whatever provision they needed to recharge them.
The big difference would be that if you ran out of power you could plug it in anywhere you could reach (or use a portable solar panel, or whatever else).
The big difference would be that if you ran out of power you could plug it in anywhere you could reach (or use a portable solar panel, or whatever else).
03-27-11, 02:39 PM
#59
Senior Citizen
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: no
Posts: 1,346
Bikes: yes
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'm not sure what you mean; cost is inextricably linked to EROEI, and vice versa. It's fundamental. Think about it. That's what cost is. How much work (energy) does it take to produce more energy? This concept is at the basis of ALL life on the planet. It is the deciding factor in how we and all creatures obtain the most fundamental source of energy and energy storage: food. If the cost (1/EROEI) is too high, we don't survive.
And just because the internal combustion engine is inefficient, don't take that to mean that even gross energy from renewable resources can even begin to approach the amount of energy currently extracted from oil in conventional automobiles, etc.- they can't.
As for net gain- of course renewable sources pale in comparison to the EROEI of fossil fuels. While estimations are difficult to construct, optimistic estimates of returns on solar power (which is the best renewable source known) is 10:1 [1]. More pessimistic estimates are more like 1:1 [2].
Biofuels: even if all of the arable land in the United States (including that which currently supplies, you know, food) were devoted to supplanting gasoline production/consumption, we would not scratch the surface of current use [3].
Again, think about it. Fossil fuels represent over 100 MILLION years of compressed, stored sunlight, graciously bequeathed unto us courtesy of the Carboniferous Period, 350 million years ago. It is a very, very potent source of energy. If you think of it in terms of drugs, fossil fuels are like heroin, to renewable energy's sugar pill.
I'm not saying we should not transition to every extent possible to renewable energy- we don't have a choice. But when we do, the current energy consumption rates CANNOT be sustained. Automobiles cannot exist in a system based on renewables- not even what is known as a totally 'solar powered' automobile. Trace the origins of that solar car, and a hell of a lot more energy went into building/maintaining the car, and the infrastructure supporting it, than will ever be retrieved from it over its lifetime.
We are going to have to downsize, in more ways than one. It is estimated that every fourth person on the planet is here because of petroleum/synthetic-nitrogen based farming[4]. If true, how we will deal with the peak of fossil fuel production is a tough pill indeed. Personally, I think part of the answer lies in getting smart, and fast, about organic farming and ecologically harmonious food production.
[1] Heinberg, 2003
[2] Odum, 1996
[3] Greer, 2003
[4] McKibben, 2010
And just because the internal combustion engine is inefficient, don't take that to mean that even gross energy from renewable resources can even begin to approach the amount of energy currently extracted from oil in conventional automobiles, etc.- they can't.
As for net gain- of course renewable sources pale in comparison to the EROEI of fossil fuels. While estimations are difficult to construct, optimistic estimates of returns on solar power (which is the best renewable source known) is 10:1 [1]. More pessimistic estimates are more like 1:1 [2].
Biofuels: even if all of the arable land in the United States (including that which currently supplies, you know, food) were devoted to supplanting gasoline production/consumption, we would not scratch the surface of current use [3].
Again, think about it. Fossil fuels represent over 100 MILLION years of compressed, stored sunlight, graciously bequeathed unto us courtesy of the Carboniferous Period, 350 million years ago. It is a very, very potent source of energy. If you think of it in terms of drugs, fossil fuels are like heroin, to renewable energy's sugar pill.
I'm not saying we should not transition to every extent possible to renewable energy- we don't have a choice. But when we do, the current energy consumption rates CANNOT be sustained. Automobiles cannot exist in a system based on renewables- not even what is known as a totally 'solar powered' automobile. Trace the origins of that solar car, and a hell of a lot more energy went into building/maintaining the car, and the infrastructure supporting it, than will ever be retrieved from it over its lifetime.
We are going to have to downsize, in more ways than one. It is estimated that every fourth person on the planet is here because of petroleum/synthetic-nitrogen based farming[4]. If true, how we will deal with the peak of fossil fuel production is a tough pill indeed. Personally, I think part of the answer lies in getting smart, and fast, about organic farming and ecologically harmonious food production.
[1] Heinberg, 2003
[2] Odum, 1996
[3] Greer, 2003
[4] McKibben, 2010
And yes, renewables can certainly approach the gross energy used in automobiles via oil, although they don't need to. If you're going to cite sources that's good but I need more information that just a last name and a year in order to determine if they're decent.
03-27-11, 02:54 PM
#60
Senior Citizen
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: no
Posts: 1,346
Bikes: yes
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
AFAIK most batteries can take a very fast charge, although depending on the type it's not very good for them, and it's mostly infrastructure that's lagging behind. Even older NiMH cells can take a ~20kW charge no problem, which implies it would take about an hour to get to almost full (getting to full takes a fair bit longer) on something w/ the same size pack as a Leaf.
03-27-11, 03:42 PM
#61
Is Right
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Everything is inextricably linked to everything else, but I can't reasonably state that No. 5, 1948, which sold for ~$150 million, has the same amount of energy as ~40 million gallons of gasoline because they both have the same cost. The cost/value of something includes any embodied energy costs, but it is not based on only embodied energy costs. If someone wants to show that something has a greater EROEI than something else then they need to look at the energy inputs alone, and should also to use comparable energy sources to avoid apples/oranges situations.
And yes, renewables can certainly approach the gross energy used in automobiles via oil, although they don't need to. If you're going to cite sources that's good but I need more information that just a last name and a year in order to determine if they're decent.
And yes, renewables can certainly approach the gross energy used in automobiles via oil, although they don't need to. If you're going to cite sources that's good but I need more information that just a last name and a year in order to determine if they're decent.
Richard Heinberg, The Party's Over. 2003
Howard T. Odum, Environmental Accounting. 1996
John Michael Greer, The Long Descent. 2006
Bill McKibben, Eaarth, 2010
I don't see what the price paid for a painting has to do with 'cost', in the context of this discussion. Or are you trying to say that money cannot be overspent? All due respect to Jackson Pollock and art aficionados, what is the value of a painting to a society that is hungry and must find a way to feed themselves?
03-27-11, 04:38 PM
#62
Sophomoric Member
Thread Starter
No, they can't.
Richard Heinberg, The Party's Over. 2003
Howard T. Odum, Environmental Accounting. 1996
John Michael Greer, The Long Descent. 2006
Bill McKibben, Eaarth, 2010
I don't see what the price paid for a painting has to do with 'cost', in the context of this discussion. Or are you trying to say that money cannot be overspent? All due respect to Jackson Pollock and art aficionados, what is the value of a painting to a society that is hungry and must find a way to feed themselves?
Richard Heinberg, The Party's Over. 2003
Howard T. Odum, Environmental Accounting. 1996
John Michael Greer, The Long Descent. 2006
Bill McKibben, Eaarth, 2010
I don't see what the price paid for a painting has to do with 'cost', in the context of this discussion. Or are you trying to say that money cannot be overspent? All due respect to Jackson Pollock and art aficionados, what is the value of a painting to a society that is hungry and must find a way to feed themselves?
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
03-27-11, 07:04 PM
#63
Senior Citizen
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: no
Posts: 1,346
Bikes: yes
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
No, they can't.
Richard Heinberg, The Party's Over. 2003
Howard T. Odum, Environmental Accounting. 1996
John Michael Greer, The Long Descent. 2006
Bill McKibben, Eaarth, 2010
I don't see what the price paid for a painting has to do with 'cost', in the context of this discussion. Or are you trying to say that money cannot be overspent? All due respect to Jackson Pollock and art aficionados, what is the value of a painting to a society that is hungry and must find a way to feed themselves?
Richard Heinberg, The Party's Over. 2003
Howard T. Odum, Environmental Accounting. 1996
John Michael Greer, The Long Descent. 2006
Bill McKibben, Eaarth, 2010
I don't see what the price paid for a painting has to do with 'cost', in the context of this discussion. Or are you trying to say that money cannot be overspent? All due respect to Jackson Pollock and art aficionados, what is the value of a painting to a society that is hungry and must find a way to feed themselves?
Originally Posted by newenglandbike
Nuclear power does not have the same EROEI that coal has, due to astronomical plant construction costs.
In terms of your claims, could you provide links to specific information available online, or at least provide the specific sections of the books you're citing along with their sources?
03-28-11, 02:39 AM
#64
Is Right
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
There are factors other than market prices which enter into the true costs of energy. An obvious example is convenience. For example, liquid energy sources are more convenient, and will continue to be used for transportation-- even if they cost more than an equivalent amount of coal derived electricity.
03-28-11, 02:56 AM
#65
Is Right
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
However, EROEI has to do with energy, not cost. A Pollock painting can cost the same amount as a lot of gasoline, but just because something has equivalent or higher costs doesn't imply it's EROEI is higher than the cost of something else.
In terms of your claims, could you provide links to specific information available online, or at least provide the specific sections of the books you're citing along with their sources?
In terms of your claims, could you provide links to specific information available online, or at least provide the specific sections of the books you're citing along with their sources?
Off the top of my head, you can start getting information about EROEI from Greer's book as early as pages 15-19. McKibben's book, pages 57-59, and pages 160-190. But honestly, McKibben's and the other books I listed are full of this kind of info from beginning to end. I could go flipping through the pages of other books to provide specific page numbers for you, but I don't feel like it.
Heinberg, McKibben, Odum, Deffeyes are among the names you'd be interested to know if you want to learn about energy and its cost, ecology and sustainability. These people have been studying the energy problem for a long time and know a lot about it. Of course there are books that provide counterpoints as well. I could recommend more sources & books, but I'm sure you can find them yourself.
Edit: Also, you may be interested in any of the publications of Dr. David Pimentel, professor emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University. Some of his pubs are available on the web. His position is clear: alternative energy cannot replace nuclear and fossil fuel sources, and society is going to have to scale back its energy consumption rate. Even with wide adoption of renewable sources of energy, downsizing is not an 'option', it is an unavoidable eventuality.
Last edited by newenglandbike; 03-28-11 at 05:43 AM.
03-28-11, 04:05 AM
#66
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Stephenville TX
Posts: 3,697
Bikes: 2010 Trek 7100
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
267,339 square miles of land area, give or take a bit depending on the tide. More highway miles than any other state, too, with 3,233 miles of interstates, 12,102 miles of US Highways, 16,199 miles of State Highways, and 40,985 miles of Farm to Market Roads. Can't find a number on county roads, park roads or city streets, though. Heck, just riding around to look at all 30,000+ bridges in this state could take a lifetime.
03-28-11, 11:12 AM
#67
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Colorado Springs, CO.
Posts: 2,116
Bikes: 2011 ICE Sprint Special Edition
Liked 102 Times
in
66 Posts
Define "can afford [to]". I could easily buy a car or several cars, but it just doesn't make sense money wise in my case. I don't have enough use for it. I need to personally own a car as much as I need to personally own a small aircraft, for example.
On the other hand, I see people get into all kinds of financial trouble but hang on to their car(s) for their dear life. What one "can" (or "cannot") afford depends on one's priorities.
--J
On the other hand, I see people get into all kinds of financial trouble but hang on to their car(s) for their dear life. What one "can" (or "cannot") afford depends on one's priorities.
--J
Can we purchase a car, SURE, some used up beater, paying 24% interest and insane cost's of full coverage ins. For us cars are a thing of the past, unless we hit a lotto, LOL. I really admire YOU all who are "Car Free" for the cause, for us, it's the only way we can LIVE, jmho, ymmv.
__________________
Take Care, Ride Safe, have FUN! :)
Jo: 2009 ICE Trice T
BJ: 2011 ICE Sprint Special Edition
Take Care, Ride Safe, have FUN! :)
Jo: 2009 ICE Trice T
BJ: 2011 ICE Sprint Special Edition
03-28-11, 12:11 PM
#68
Senior Citizen
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: no
Posts: 1,346
Bikes: yes
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
lyeinyoureye,
Off the top of my head, you can start getting information about EROEI from Greer's book as early as pages 15-19. McKibben's book, pages 57-59, and pages 160-190. But honestly, McKibben's and the other books I listed are full of this kind of info from beginning to end. I could go flipping through the pages of other books to provide specific page numbers for you, but I don't feel like it.
Heinberg, McKibben, Odum, Deffeyes are among the names you'd be interested to know if you want to learn about energy and its cost, ecology and sustainability. These people have been studying the energy problem for a long time and know a lot about it. Of course there are books that provide counterpoints as well. I could recommend more sources & books, but I'm sure you can find them yourself.
Edit: Also, you may be interested in any of the publications of Dr. David Pimentel, professor emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University. Some of his pubs are available on the web. His position is clear: alternative energy cannot replace nuclear and fossil fuel sources, and society is going to have to scale back its energy consumption rate. Even with wide adoption of renewable sources of energy, downsizing is not an 'option', it is an unavoidable eventuality.
Off the top of my head, you can start getting information about EROEI from Greer's book as early as pages 15-19. McKibben's book, pages 57-59, and pages 160-190. But honestly, McKibben's and the other books I listed are full of this kind of info from beginning to end. I could go flipping through the pages of other books to provide specific page numbers for you, but I don't feel like it.
Heinberg, McKibben, Odum, Deffeyes are among the names you'd be interested to know if you want to learn about energy and its cost, ecology and sustainability. These people have been studying the energy problem for a long time and know a lot about it. Of course there are books that provide counterpoints as well. I could recommend more sources & books, but I'm sure you can find them yourself.
Edit: Also, you may be interested in any of the publications of Dr. David Pimentel, professor emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University. Some of his pubs are available on the web. His position is clear: alternative energy cannot replace nuclear and fossil fuel sources, and society is going to have to scale back its energy consumption rate. Even with wide adoption of renewable sources of energy, downsizing is not an 'option', it is an unavoidable eventuality.
03-28-11, 03:01 PM
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seville, Spain
Posts: 4,403
Bikes: Brompton M6R, mountain bikes, Circe Omnis+ tandem
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
5 Posts
The Brits aren't going for the plan: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12879566
03-28-11, 03:48 PM
#70
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
03-28-11, 03:50 PM
#71
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The Brits aren't going for the plan: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12879566
03-28-11, 04:05 PM
#72
Heretic
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 2,246
Bikes: Specialized Sirrus, Giant OCR3, Giant CRS3
Liked 561 Times
in
429 Posts
The Brits aren't going for the plan: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12879566
Typical Brussels bashing from the British refers to a story from years back that the EU was trying to standardise fruit and veg.
As I posted before this report is aspirational.
03-28-11, 07:43 PM
#73
In the right lane
"We will not be banning cars from city centres anymore than we will be having rectangular bananas."
Typical Brussels bashing from the British refers to a story from years back that the EU was trying to standardise fruit and veg.
As I posted before this report is aspirational.
Typical Brussels bashing from the British refers to a story from years back that the EU was trying to standardise fruit and veg.
As I posted before this report is aspirational.
03-29-11, 06:01 AM
#74
Heretic
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 2,246
Bikes: Specialized Sirrus, Giant OCR3, Giant CRS3
Liked 561 Times
in
429 Posts
The EU Commission is not elected. The UK government is and so are the individual city authorities.
I'm not making a point about the merits or otherwise of these proposals just trying to explain the political background to a U.S. audience.
03-29-11, 07:01 AM
#75
Recumbent Trike
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Santa Cruz, CA.
Posts: 560
Bikes: WizWheelz TerraTrike with Velo-Kit & 24V motor, completely enclosed (fiberglass/kevlar & Lexan) EZ SX Tad with 36V motor
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
4 hours maximum on my recumbent trike. More charging time NOT advised. 3 plain old lead acid batteries (motorcycle battery size- 36V) with a dinky (as in small) lithium battery charger. Usually full power charge 2 hours and top it off at slow charge. It is nothing fancy- off the shelf stuff!
