Living Car Free - Peak Electricity?

Seems like ever other thread on Living Car Free has to do with Peak Oil. Just wondering if there will be shortage of electricity anytime soon? If not, just imagine what that would do to our economy and way of life?

Doomday Dreamer

Do a search for the "Olduvia Theory" . It seems as though a lot of the predictions by these guys are coming to pass. Peak oil is already here. And there seems to be blackouts occuring all over the world. It's obvious this over consumption of natural resourses can't go on much longer.

Sorry, it's "Olduvai Theory".

texas and california both have had demand induced shortages causing blackouts in the past few years, its projected to get worse.........is that peak electricity? no it isnt, just a symptom of whats going on

during he reagan years natural gas was basically preferred as the new and favored source for electric generation, a boom of new gas plant construction followed, problem was, natural gas forecast for the future wasnt even looked at........US was already peaking natural gas wise

fast forward to today, natural gas plants are now the favored peak load plants and shutdown most of the time, but we got bit in the butt by coal too, it peaked btu wise back in the 90's.........all the high quality low pollution stuff is gone or tough to get at(anthracite), the medium grade is getting pretty scarce as well, and extraction of whats left has not been able to have been ramped up to compensate or continue the growth........the lower grades of coal do not make as much energy when burned, so we peaked as far as the total amount of energy available from coal years ago

last I saw this discussed anywhere it now costs more for the shipping of coal to power plants than the coal itself, and thats another issue all by itself

I know someone will probably jump in here and say at some point, "but we have more than 100 years of coal left", Id be suprised if that were true actually. The actual amount of coal left isnt something thats been kept track of very well or assessed, its all been an assumption , no Im not kidding, it isnt surveyed or watched closely at all. Taken into account that its peaked already and the history of how the US husbands its resources dont be suprised if we have another "oh sheot" moment when it is finally realized what the real situation is.........already happened that way with oil and they HAD THAT DATA in front of their faces at the time saying when it would peak !!!

this doesnt mean peak electricity though, with some serious work and expenditure electric is one area that can be expanded by quite a bit-----> solar, wind, and nukes still can grow by leaps and bounds

we get like 1/2 or more of our natural gas from canada which is having a tough time anymore keeping up with demand

coal isnt gonna get much bigger domestically even with heroic efforts

consequences of deregulation of the major utilities..........long term strategic planning is abandoned, and in such a capital intensive industry this is bad bad mojo, and the results have been predictable, future planning has all but been abandoned

lots of enron types still around and waiting to pounce on opportunities to screw things up for short term gains

pedex,
Good assessment. One thing that should be pointed out is the difficulty of building any new type of plant. The NIMBY syndrome makes it difficult to build much of anything anymore. I really think that decentralizing it is going to be the way to go. There is an island in Denmark that is self sufficient on electricity and heating. They use a biomass central plant. I live in an area where solar has decent potential. We are in the process of designing a small house to live in. I am seriously considering solar voltics for the lighting and refrigerator. With the current crop of fluorescents and LED technology growing the lighting should be the easy part.:D

Aaron:)

Seems like ever other thread on Living Car Free has to do with Peak Oil.
You noticed? Me too. Probably another 25% have to do with what's wrong with motor vehicles and the people who use them. Maybe another 10% with pie-in-the sky Popular Science Magazine solutions not ready for prime time.


Ya think there is maybe 15% of discussion about actually living car free or trying to live car free? Maybe.

Maybe the best course of action is to rename the list to reflect the preferred discussion topics: I'd suggest Anti-Car Owner/Anti-Consumer Culture Nanny-Ranter List

Nukes, nearly never ending electricity. As far as the waste goes, once oil has run out, we'll need something to do with the middle east, just send the waste there.

You noticed? Me too. Probably another 25% have to do with what's wrong with motor vehicles and the people who use them. Maybe another 10% with pie-in-the sky Popular Science Magazine solutions not ready for prime time.


Ya think there is maybe 15% of discussion about actually living car free or trying to live car free? Maybe.

Maybe the best course of action is to rename the list to reflect the preferred discussion topics: I'd suggest Anti-Car Owner/Anti-Consumer Culture Nanny-Ranter List

so quit yer beotchin and start some threads about it

the subject matter here is as much a sign of the times we live in as everything else, dont like it, then go elsewhere or dont contribute

would you honestly expect car free people to be advocating massive wasteful usage of auto's?

on top of that, just how much discussion is needed about the actual logistics of car free life? it isnt rocket science, but if thats what you wanna discuss by all means do so, start some threads about it, thats on you, I have before, seems there wasnt a whole lot to talk about

so quit yer beotchin and start some threads about it

the subject matter here is as much a sign of the times we live in as everything else, dont like it, then go elsewhere or dont contribute
Who's beotchin? Just observing and pointing out the facts, Jack. My, you are sensitive that the car free living discussion is what it is. Don't you agree that the living car free title to this list is a misnomer considering the content of the postings are anything but.

on top of that, just how much discussion is needed about the actual logistics of car free life? it isnt rocket science, but if thats what you wanna discuss by all means do so, start some threads about it, thats on you, I have before, seems there wasnt a whole lot to talk about
You are correct, it isn't rocket science and there isn't much to talk about. If someone one wants to live simply they can do it, just don't expect too many people to voluntarily join you or to be convinced by endless carping and whining about all those people who do not live the righteous life of the few who "get it."

You noticed? Me too. Probably another 25% have to do with what's wrong with motor vehicles and the people who use them. Maybe another 10% with pie-in-the sky Popular Science Magazine solutions not ready for prime time.


Ya think there is maybe 15% of discussion about actually living car free or trying to live car free? Maybe.

Maybe the best course of action is to rename the list to reflect the preferred discussion topics: I'd suggest Anti-Car Owner/Anti-Consumer Culture Nanny-Ranter List

7000 posts and you've started 7 threads (one in this forum - about a comic). I suppose complaining is easier than contributing eh?

And no... posting several disparaging comments on each thread does not consitute contributing.

--------

My biggest concern about the energy situation is that, if left on their own, the power companies will continue building coal plants to meet demand. With regulation being provided by local governments, the chance of environmental concerns being considered are diminished.

7000 posts and you've started 7 threads (one in this forum - about a comic). I suppose complaining is easier than contributing eh?

And no... posting several disparaging comments on each thread does not consitute contributing.
Who's doing the complaining and disparaging, Jack? BTW, How are the kids? How do you find the time to keep book on my posts with your busy family life?

Seems that you are the whiner and complainer here. I suppose you are of the school that believes that any comment skeptical of your own firmly held faith-based theories is a personal insult too.

on top of that, just how much discussion is needed about the actual logistics of car free life? it isnt rocket science, but if thats what you wanna discuss by all means do so, start some threads about it, thats on you, I have before, seems there wasnt a whole lot to talk about
That's a good point and much of the conflict arising in this forum is probably related to the fact that this forum probably shouldn't exist at all because there really isn't that much to say about being car free.


You are correct, it isn't rocket science and there isn't much to talk about. If someone one wants to live simply they can do it, just don't expect too many people to voluntarily join you or to be convinced by endless carping and whining about all those people who do not live the righteous life of the few who "get it."
On the other hand, I suppose you expect that your endless carping and whining in the car free forum about the foolishness of living car free will convince people to not be car free?

That's a good point and much of the conflict arising in this forum is probably related to the fact that this forum probably shouldn't exist at all because there really isn't that much to say about being car free.


On the other hand, I suppose you expect that your endless carping and whining in the car free forum about the foolishness of living car free will convince people to not be car free?
I don't expect to convince a self righteous zealot of anything. Especially one who can't recognize that skepticism and criticism of ignorant and exaggerated claims and hyperbole to "sell" the car free lifestyle is not the same as criticizing the car free lifestyle itself.

Not all car free people are like the few dim bulbs who are so unaware that there are people unlike themselves, or who do not wish to live without a family forever in a dorm room, parent's basement, or rooming/apt. house on desolation row, or the life of a simple sharecropper like the zealots recommend.

We'll hit peak Protons ~10^36+ years in the future. Abandon all hope n3wbs!
http://www.antabaka.net/images/music/futurama.gif

I don't expect to convince a self righteous zealot of anything. Especially one who can't recognize that skepticism and criticism of ignorant and exaggerated claims and hyperbole to "sell" the car free lifestyle is not the same as criticizing the car free lifestyle itself.

Not all car free people are like the few dim bulbs who are so unaware that there are people unlike themselves, or who do not wish to live without a family forever in a dorm room, parent's basement, or rooming/apt. house on desolation row, or the life of a simple sharecropper like the zealots recommend.
Good, we agree......so then why do you post here? I'm having a hard time understanding where your ignorant, exaggerated claims and hyperbole against other forum members fit in to this forum. I mean, ignorant and exaggerated claims about being car free is kinda on topic, but ignorant and exaggerated claims about people who make ignorant and exaggerated claims about being car free is quite a stretch. After all, you hardly ever have anything to say to anyone aside from putting words in other people's mouths and self righteously pigeon holeing them as the "dim bulbs" described above.

Don't you think that if you don't have anything to say directly regarding the car free lifestyle itself then you shouldn't be posting here?

doesn't a lot of power come from natural gas?

Nukes, nearly never ending electricity. As far as the waste goes, once oil has run out, we'll need something to do with the middle east, just send the waste there.

No finite resource can provide energy infinitely. Nuclear at current usage rates, and with uranium recycling, has the potential to provide power for a long period of time, providing the estimates of the amount available are even close to accurate. However, another Chernobyl, or even another 3 mile island, or a terrorist act involving either a reactor or shipped fuel bundles for recycling could end nuclears practicality as an energy source.

Now, a better technique is to reduce energy use, solar, wind and gravity are energy sources that will not run out, but they are limited. Technically one day the sun will run out, but then it will not matter. For electric power consumption, one of the biggest wastes is lights left on, when a room is not occupied. The second biggest is rooms which have no or poor access to daylight, so that lights must be on, whenever the room is used. Incandescent bulbs, are being banned in more and more places due to their poor efficiency, they use up to 4 times the energy of other technologies..... There are many other examples.

pedex,
Good assessment. One thing that should be pointed out is the difficulty of building any new type of plant. The NIMBY syndrome makes it difficult to build much of anything anymore. Aaron:)

I don't know about you but an electrical power plant is a major blight! Do you want to live next to all those high voltage wires? The coal power plant that provides my town its energy spews major polution in the air. The NIMBYs are right on this one.

One issue with electricity is that it takes a looooong time to build up capacity. Ontario is in a squeeze for electricity generation (not much significant new capacity in years, and closing old plants as they die). The other issue with electricity generation is that it is less portable than oil, or other energy forms.

This is also true (lead times and tight supply) for refining capacity, but there is one huge difference:

Electricity demand is elastic (people change their consumption based on cost)

Gasoline demand is not (people will use gas no matter how much it costs)

If Ontario stopped subsidising electricity costs, especially if they metered it based on cost by the hour (I think this is what California did), then people would reduce use at peak times. I.E. if it cost you $10 to run your dryer during a summer day many people would either a) turn the dryer on at night or b) use a clothesline. If it costs $100 to fill your SUV's gas tank you abuse the gas station attendant and drive off - with no thought to reducing your consumption. This conclusion is consistent with the increase in US gasoline demand in the face of a significant increase in price.

Bottom line - people are willing to conserve electricity (it worked in California), and all that is really required to to reduce peak uses by 5-10% and we have a good cushion (at least in Ontario). But more capacity will have to be added at some point. I would hope that structural changes will occur that will reduce electricity use in general and peak use in particular (A/C units with timers, more efficient lighting, more solar light, better appliances, and so on), and also bring on more distributed electricity generation. Co-generation facilities, solar where it will work, wind, taking isolated houses off grid, geothermal and others could all have a place in electricity generation.

Electricity is pretty much a limitless resource. Its not that we are at peak, we just need to build up the capacity to generate electricity.
Maybe if the tree-huggers hadnt lobbied to have the dams removed we would have the blackout issues.

Quit whining and make it yourself if you don't like how others are doing it. :p

One issue with electricity is that it takes a looooong time to build up capacity. Ontario is in a squeeze for electricity generation (not much significant new capacity in years, and closing old plants as they die). The other issue with electricity generation is that it is less portable than oil, or other energy forms.

You have 20 gallons of gasoline and you need to use your car to move them, unfortunately you have to use the gasoline in order to move it. After 500 miles, oops, you have none left. Transform your electricity to half a million Volt, connect to over head grid and you can send that electricity considerable distances with some line loss. How are you defining portable? Is it, you can put gas in a tank and walk around with it? The electrical equivalent would be a battery, and i consider my laptop (for example) very portable, and Homeland Security will let me fly with it. hmmmm I don't think your going to fly with your gallon of gas. :rolleyes:


This is also true (lead times and tight supply) for refining capacity, but there is one huge difference:

Electricity demand is elastic (people change their consumption based on cost)

Gasoline demand is not (people will use gas no matter how much it costs)

If Ontario stopped subsidising electricity costs, especially if they metered it based on cost by the hour (I think this is what California did), then people would reduce use at peak times. I.E. if it cost you $10 to run your dryer during a summer day many people would either a) turn the dryer on at night or b) use a clothesline. If it costs $100 to fill your SUV's gas tank you abuse the gas station attendant and drive off - with no thought to reducing your consumption. This conclusion is consistent with the increase in US gasoline demand in the face of a significant increase in price.

Bottom line - people are willing to conserve electricity (it worked in California), and all that is really required to to reduce peak uses by 5-10% and we have a good cushion (at least in Ontario). But more capacity will have to be added at some point. I would hope that structural changes will occur that will reduce electricity use in general and peak use in particular (A/C units with timers, more efficient lighting, more solar light, better appliances, and so on), and also bring on more distributed electricity generation. Co-generation facilities, solar where it will work, wind, taking isolated houses off grid, geothermal and others could all have a place in electricity generation.
In the future almost all electrical appliances like air conditioning, refrigerators, freezers, immersion hot water heaters, baseboard heating, tumble drier, etc. will have switches that can be controlled by the local generating company, and they will be able to control the load so that generating sets can run closer to 100% load for longer periods of time. At present the lack of fine-grain control means that there always has to be a buffer of spare capacity to accommodate sudden changes in demand. In the UK, everybody lives in the same time zone, the BBC 9 0'Clock News comes on, and almost the entire nation plugs the kettle in to make a cup of tea! The result was Dinorwig (http://www.fhc.co.uk/dinorwig.htm). If the generating companies could have turned off other heavy consumers (listed above) for 5 minutes, then there would have been no need for Dinorwig.

Electricity is pretty much a limitless resource. Its not that we are at peak, we just need to build up the capacity to generate electricity.
Maybe if the tree-huggers hadnt lobbied to have the dams removed we would have the blackout issues.
There are very few places in this world where hydro from dams is a practical source of power. "Treehuggers" or no.

I know someone will probably jump in here and say at some point, "but we have more than 100 years of coal left", Id be suprised if that were true actually. The actual amount of coal left isnt something thats been kept track of very well or assessed, its all been an assumption , no Im not kidding, it isnt surveyed or watched closely at all. Taken into account that its peaked already and the history of how the US husbands its resources dont be suprised if we have another "oh sheot" moment when it is finally realized what the real situation is.........already happened that way with oil and they HAD THAT DATA in front of their faces at the time saying when it would peak !!!

A couple of points. I would recommend that everyone watch Albert Bartlett's lecture on arithmetic, population and energy. He talks about coal, and how the talk of hundreds of years worth of coal are not realistic estimates.

http://globalpublicmedia.com/dr_albert_bartlett_arithmetic_population_and_energy

It runs about 1 hour, and while the discussion involves mathematics, the points are easily understood by all.

While we are on the subject, there was more recent article which discusses the question of coal in far more detail:

http://globalpublicmedia.com/heinberg_coals_future_in_doubt


MuseLetter #179 (March, 2007), “Burning the Furniture” http://globalpublicmedia.com/museletter179 consisted of a summary of the conclusions of a recent study by the Energy Watch Group (EWG) on future global coal supplies. That study, “Coal: Resources and Future Production ,” published on April 5, found that global coal production could peak in as few as 15 years. This astonishing conclusion was based on a careful analysis of recent reserves revisions for several nations.

The EWG report has enormous implications for climate change, global energy, and particularly for future electricity supply and steel production in the US and China. Previously, virtually everyone in the fields of energy policy and energy analysis—as well as nearly everyone involved in discussions about climate change—had assumed that the world’s coal endowment was so enormous that no limits would be encountered anytime this century. The EWG’s conclusions turn this assumption on its head.

There are very few places in this world where hydro from dams is a practical source of power. "Treehuggers" or no.
Hydro-electric power is certainly better than none at all, is it not?

Hydro-electric power is certainly better than none at all, is it not?

It may be better... but...
Not only is hydro only available in fewe areas, but those areas that are suited for it are already used. Furthermore, "some critics believe that certain dams contribute more to climate change than a fossil fuel plant would" because of methane emissions.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/05/methane_burning.php

doesn't a lot of power come from natural gas?

Not really.

Base load power plants are generally powered by nuclear reactions. These plants are generally on line and producing power 95-96% of the time. The 4-5% of time when they aren't generating is due to maintenance, fuel reloads, or some type of safety issue that has forced the plant to shut down (this is extremely rare). This is actually the cheapest generation as far as fuel costs, but the costs to build the plant (capacity costs) are the most expensive.

Next up the ladder is generally coal fired steam turbine generation. This is usually available (on line) 80-90% of the time. These plants are down for mainenance more often than nuclear primarily due to natural characteristics of coal burining such as slag buildup, maintenance of environmental control equipment, etc.

The next step up the ladder would probably be hydro generation. This could be anything from damned up rivers to pumped hydro storage where water is pumped up hill at night (when theres less demand for electricity) and then the water is released when demand is at its peak. Basically, we've run out of rivers to damn up, and who wants a pump storage hydro facility near by?

Now we've come to gas. These are generally turbine driven generators. They are not very efficient. Some combined cycle units are in service, and these will almost double the efficiency of the gas turbine by using the wasted heat from the engine to boil water and turn an additional turbine. Either way, gas is the most expensive fuel wise. Maintenance is a huge issue with gas turbines as well. It's really quite amazing what a turbine blade can do when it breaks off in service and goes flying through the casing of the turbine. It won't stop for hundreds or even thousands of yards (depending on the size of the piece that breaks). Once that piece breaks off, the whole turbine assembly is now unbalanced and will basically rip itself to shreds in seconds. Think big gas powered bomb with large pieces of shrapnel. For this reason, the inside of the turbine has to be inspected at frequent intervals, which is not a cheap procedure. All in all, gas turbines and combined cycle units are going to be online to cover peak demand or when there is eminent threat to the grid stability such as brown outs.

Nukes, nearly never ending electricity. As far as the waste goes, once oil has run out, we'll need something to do with the middle east, just send the waste there.


So much wrong with that post.

Electricity is pretty much a limitless resource. Its not that we are at peak, we just need to build up the capacity to generate electricity.
Maybe if the tree-huggers hadnt lobbied to have the dams removed we would have the blackout issues.
Dams have a finite lifespan...they silt in, or burst eventually. Some of them, like the three gorges dams, submerge the best farmland, which isn't a good long term plan.

Seems like ever other thread on Living Car Free has to do with Peak Oil. Just wondering if there will be shortage of electricity anytime soon? If not, just imagine what that would do to our economy and way of life?

Doomday Dreamer

it sure seems a lot of the threads here have little to do with biking - but it is fun debating. i must admit, it's why i come here :)

to the point
in general, the price of energy is tightly related to price of fossil fuels. until the majority of electricity is generated by some other source, the prices will remain proportianal, and "peak oil" = "peak energy".

I do wonder if the price of electricity in countries with heavy alternative electricity production (nuke? hydro?) has gone up as much as ours in the States - can someone weigh in? I think a few locations use geothermal steam generation as their primary source.

I figure there's only so much energy the Earth came with in the forms of easily combustible or reactive compounds. even geothermal may be limited and has it's detractors. Once it's gone, or just too expensive to use, we'll have to figure out how to more effectively harness the one free and essentially limitless power source: the sun.

The sun will run out eventually too, but in the meantime it causes wind (wind power) evaporates water (hydroelectric), grows stuff (biomass, veg oil, etc) and intriguigly, solar radiation can be harnessed directly, more and more efficiently, with solar cells and parabolic reflectors making steam directly or indirectly.

When the sun runs out, THEN we'll be in trouble:D

Base load power plants are generally powered by nuclear reactions. These plants are generally on line and producing power 95-96% of the time. The 4-5% of time when they aren't generating is due to maintenance, fuel reloads, or some type of safety issue that has forced the plant to shut down (this is extremely rare). This is actually the cheapest generation as far as fuel costs, but the costs to build the plant (capacity costs) are the most expensive.

Whatever you call the "base load", nuclear plants are not responsible for the majority of electricity produced worldwide. Most electricity is made from fossil fuels such as coal.

When the sun runs out, THEN we'll be in trouble


What a lot of people fail to realize is that if fossil fuel energy becomes scarce, it's going to affect our non-electric energy use the fastest: fuel for motor vehicles will be scarce, yes. But fuels for hot water (for bathing and washing dishes/clothes), fuel for drying clothes and heating homes... they will all be scarce and expensive. It's normal these decades to use fossil fuels for all of those purposes, and to use much more energy for those purposes than for electricity and transportation combined. And unless there is a dramatic drop in the price of fossil-fuel-free electricity, it will remain more expensive to use electricity than natural gas for all of those heat-production purposes.

Whatever you call the "base load", nuclear plants are not responsible for the majority of electricity produced worldwide. Most electricity is made from fossil fuels such as coal.



"Base Load" is comprised of the units that can generate the most power the most efficiently (cost wise). This is both nuclear and coal. The mix varies from region to region and time of year.

You have 20 gallons of gasoline and you need to use your car to move them, unfortunately you have to use the gasoline in order to move it. After 500 miles, oops, you have none left. Transform your electricity to half a million Volt, connect to over head grid and you can send that electricity considerable distances with some line loss. How are you defining portable? Is it, you can put gas in a tank and walk around with it? The electrical equivalent would be a battery, and i consider my laptop (for example) very portable, and Homeland Security will let me fly with it. hmmmm I don't think your going to fly with your gallon of gas. :rolleyes:

<edit>



Consider the amount of electricity that is exported from north america to any other continent. Then compare to the amount of fossil fuels imported overseas. In Canada, the electrical grid barely connects the provinces to each other - e.g. when Ontario runs close to 100% capacity, Quebec does not have the transmission capacity to send the electricity over (of cours it is feasible to send electricity those distances, but a lot of infrastructure has to be in place, and it is expensive).

Compare to the recent gasoline supply disruptions in Ontario, where gasoline supplies were shipped in from other provinces and the US.

Consider the amount of electricity that is exported from north america to any other continent. Then compare to the amount of fossil fuels imported overseas. In Canada, the electrical grid barely connects the provinces to each other - e.g. when Ontario runs close to 100% capacity, Quebec does not have the transmission capacity to send the electricity over (of course it is feasible to send electricity those distances, but a lot of infrastructure has to be in place, and it is expensive).

Compare to the recent gasoline supply disruptions in Ontario, where gasoline supplies were shipped in from other provinces and the US.
The infrastructure of an overhead cable(s) is considerably less than that of a pipeline (for gas or oil) - to use a reasonable comparison.

Lack of investment in transmission capacity is a totally different argument to "oil is more portable than everything else". You appear to be changing the context of your argument.

And even in the changed context of your argument which of the following is cheaper - the infrastructure of roads (high maintenance), (road) oil tankers and gas stations, OR overhead cables and a few transformers and switch gear (that need little maintenance)? String a cable up over a field and you still have a field! :rolleyes:

Stop with the logic HoustonB! There's no place for that in the carfree forums... :D

You noticed? Me too. Probably another 25% have to do with what's wrong with motor vehicles and the people who use them. Maybe another 10% with pie-in-the sky Popular Science Magazine solutions not ready for prime time.


Ya think there is maybe 15% of discussion about actually living car free or trying to live car free? Maybe.

Maybe the best course of action is to rename the list to reflect the preferred discussion topics: I'd suggest Anti-Car Owner/Anti-Consumer Culture Nanny-Ranter List

Then they'd have to create you your own specific sub-forum - Commuting on a 3 speed hub geared upright bike with North Road bars, Pipe Lagging Grips, a Coaster Brake and a Brooks Saddle forum - that might do the job.

Then they'd have to create you your own specific sub-forum - Commuting on a 3 speed hub geared upright bike with North Road bars, Pipe Lagging Grips, a Coaster Brake and a Brooks Saddle forum - that might do the job.
No need for such a long title. How 'bout the Real Real Cyclist Forum? :)

Maybe the best course of action is to rename the list to reflect the preferred discussion topics: I'd suggest Anti-Car Owner/Anti-Consumer Culture Nanny-Ranter List

I'd call it the Pro-Environment/Pro-Sustainable Economy, frustrated-at-the-foolishness list.

I'd call it the Pro-Environment/Pro-Sustainable Economy, frustrated-at-the-foolishness list.
Yeah, that would be appropriate too. Perhaps that frustration is the excuse (valid or not -your choice)for so much over the top political, economic, sociological rhetoric spouted here.

What this list certainly is not (with an occasional exception) is anything about using bicycles to facilitate living car-free.

Who's beotchin? Just observing and pointing out the facts, Jack. My, you are sensitive that the car free living discussion is what it is. Don't you agree that the living car free title to this list is a misnomer considering the content of the postings are anything but.

Does anyone else picture I-Like-To-Bike as a social recluse who hides in his basement striking out at the only ones willing to listen? (or forced to listen) I think that there are constantly valid points about ILTB's aggression towards others here, why is he allowed to stay?

Oh, and let me save you the time:
"Sure, you wouldn't want any sane arguments against your self-absorbed rhetoric that don't hold any water, Jack.You are an idiot. A dumbSh1t. A Jerkoff!! You shouldn't even be here!" -ILTB

Oh, and let me save you the time:
"Sure, you wouldn't want any sane arguments against your self-absorbed rhetoric that don't hold any water, Jack.You are an idiot. A dumbSh1t. A Jerkoff!! You shouldn't even be here!" -davidmcowan's straw man
I wouldn't say you shouldn't be here.

Does anyone else picture I-Like-To-Bike as a social recluse who hides in his basement striking out at the only ones willing to listen? (or forced to listen) I think that there are constantly valid points about ILTB's aggression towards others here, why is he allowed to stay?

Oh, and let me save you the time:
"Sure, you wouldn't want any sane arguments against your self-absorbed rhetoric that don't hold any water, Jack.You are an idiot. A dumbSh1t. A Jerkoff!! You shouldn't even be here!" -ILTB


I've noticed that some people on here seem to want to personally attack ILTB.
ILTB may attack ideas and statements, but I have yet to see him make a personal attack about a poster.
Why is this? He is simply expressing the fact that some of the posts in this forum are too dramatic, over the top, overstated, or however you want to express it, but he has not (that I've seen) attacked any person.
And the post I quoted is a prime example of how not to post if you want to have a legitimate exchange of ideas.

ILTB may attack ideas and statements, but I have yet to see him make a personal attack about a poster.


Are you serious? Are you ever reading his posts? A couple snips from this thread alone:

<snip>

BTW, How are the kids? How do you find the time to keep book on my posts with your busy family life?

Seems that you are the whiner and complainer here.

I don't expect to convince a self righteous zealot of anything. Especially one who can't recognize that skepticism and criticism of ignorant and exaggerated claims and hyperbole to "sell" the car free lifestyle is not the same as criticizing the car free lifestyle itself.

<snip>

This is fairly light compared to other places he posts but it is CERTAINLY attacking other posters personally.

I wasn't posting to invoke an exchange of thoughts with ILTB, I'm not interested in doing so with him.

ILTB likes to prod, and so do others in different ways, including myself. If you don't like it, ignore it, and if you want to respond to it, then do so. :)

7000 posts and you've started 7 threads (one in this forum - about a comic). I suppose complaining is easier than contributing eh?

And no... posting several disparaging comments on each thread does not consitute contributing.

--------


The original post that ILTB was responding to. In this thread, ILTB is being called a complainer.
He responded to this.

Are you serious? Are you ever reading his posts? A couple snips from this thread alone:
A couple of "snips" is right. Snipped right out of context.

ILTB likes to prod, and so do others in different ways, including myself. If you don't like it, ignore it, and if you want to respond to it, then do so. :)
All true. My take: the whiners and complainers not only don't like criticism; they can't handle it either.

Ummm....does it matter how a personal attack comes about? Does that change the fact that it is a personal attack? I still don't get why he hangs here. Modo, do you know why?