Some interesting predictions for 2008 (Denver: loans, real estate, health insurance)

[hello-world]

Originally Posted by pittnurse70

DH and I could probably do it. I drive a grand total of 9 miles per day, round trip to my job. I do not leave for lunch. DH drives 12 miles, could take the bus. He walks to Wendy's at lunch many days (no caf in his building, could of course, take a lunch). I am probably driving less than I did in my pre-employment days, when I ran a lot of errands and ferried kids around town to various activities.

The suburbs have changed a lot since 1973. There was no hospital in Louisville then (where I work), few stores other than a grocery. Now that the population has grown to support retail, we don't have to drive to Boulder or Broomfield for much. There was little "telecommuting", b/c there were no PCs!

My DD lives near DU and attends school at the Health Science Center. They have just moved to Aurora, which she says will be a 20 min. drive for her. Even when the HSC was in E. Denver, she drove at least as much as me to get to her "work". Living in the city is no guarantee that you do not drive a lot.

and now that retail has grown outward for subdivisions to follow. ever notice how some of the suburbs are so beautifully and conveniently intertwined with some of the shopping in the area? all built at about the same time and so almost get lost in all the shopping that could be had any time you come or go from a residence? almost as though...the developers of each are in each others' pockets? i wonder what their conversations with some of the local politics sound like??

[hello-world]

Originally Posted by pittnurse70

I like Sea Level's post and would like to comment on it a bit.

lots of good points, here. i hear you when it comes to people liking to have a "piece of the pie".

regarding water, i think jazzlover might have plenty to say on that point. maybe to the effect of after a while, where do you pipe it from? desal plants? and what will those fights and costs look like?

regarding colorado as an example of sprawl prone places, this link (few years old, so, a little dated, i suppose) points to denver metro as the second fasted growing metro in the country in terms of land area as of a few years ago:

Clickable Sprawl Map

it seems that as petro/plant based materials and water become less readily available, we might have to rethink our concepts of growth and density/destiny. i am not convinced that "working from home" may be viable, as pittnurse points out, and even if it is, it seems that the resources that go into the energy consumption and the materials used in the involved technology (and it's production) may result in some other questions. but i agree telecommuting might be a decent alternative - would be good to see some cost/benefit analysis to THAT one, too.

[steveco.]

Originally Posted by pittnurse70

I live in a suburb that could be more described as a small town. Everything I really need, including some entertainment, is within a four mile drive, with some things much closer. It is walkable, if you want to do it.

Yes but someone in Highlands ranch or out in aurora could say the same thing. Most suburban neighboorhoods have basic services fairly close by

[hello-world]

Originally Posted by steveco.

Yes but someone in Highlands ranch or out in aurora could say the same thing. Most suburban neighboorhoods have basic services fairly close by

and do people tend to be as close to home as pittnurse says she is, sticking to the 4 mile radius and walking or busing it? this link indicates maybe not, judging from denv. metro being #10 in terms of $ spent on commuting:
America's Most Expensive Commutes - Forbes.com

another link showing denver in top 10 for sprawl under other criteria:
Denver among worst offenders for sprawl - Sacramento Business Journal:

[McGowdog]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

I'm sure this will engender a flood of comments--I sure hope so.

Jyou paranoid Man! I heard the same thing about the Sub-Prime Mortgage Foreclosure Bust; that Colorado was riding the wave ahead of other places, blahblahblah.

Here's a prediction: no one on earth knows-as usual. But if you could, we could just capitalize on others' losses. Truth is, only God knows. If we keep thinking about the Stock Market crashing again, it probably will. In the past, a good War got us out of it. Jeepers! How many enemies do we have to kill to get our economy going again? Or maybe we're gonna have to get off our PHAT aghghghsses and roll up our sleeves and re-invent ourselves.

I know! Let's all move to Wyoming and live off the fat of the land!

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by hello-world

oh but there's CORN. "ethanol! ETHanol! ETHANOL!" ....

IMO, Ethanol is a joke. Takes as much energy to make a gallon of the stuff as you get from it. Only reason we're growing so much corn and making so much ethanol is because of the Federal subsidy of 51-cents/gallon, i.e., more pork barrel foolishness to buy the farm vote - that's it.

Many can get by on 5 gallons of gas a week, many can't. It's a good academic exercise to help to focus the mind and frame the issues.

All we have to do is move aggressively to battery-powered cars. We have enough coal, dirty as it is, to power those, and if we start building nuclear power plants again we can get that electricity cleanly. Science will get us a solution to the nuclear waste problem. There's enough wind in this state to power us too, not to mention solar power.

Solutions are all around us - there for the taking. As usual, the problem is politics, entrenched lobbies and vested interests.

[hello-world]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

IMO, Ethanol is a joke. Takes as much energy to make a gallon of the stuff as you get from it. Only reason we're growing so much corn and making so much ethanol is because of the Federal subsidy of 51-cents/gallon, i.e., more pork barrel foolishness to buy the farm vote - that's it.

Many can get by on 5 gallons of gas a week, many can't. It's a good academic exercise to help to focus the mind and frame the issues.

All we have to do is move aggressively to battery-powered cars. We have enough coal, dirty as it is, to power those, and if we start building nuclear power plants again we can get that electricity cleanly. Science will get us a solution to the nuclear waste problem. There's enough wind in this state to power us too, not to mention solar power.

Solutions are all around us - there for the taking. As usual, the problem is politics, entrenched lobbies and vested interests.

i agree on the ethanol. i guess you probably got that i was kidding from the context, though.

as far as other alternatives, i agree we need to look at some of that. whenever i look into that, it seems like there are ills to each and maybe it's the demand that can use a look, as with huge populations and demand, seems like each of these can have significant consequences. coal is definitely dirty. batteries need recharging, so probably fossil fuels or nuclear would need to supply that kind of load in a battery powered auto industry. hydrogen, might be worth more looks (i've seen studies of hydrogen leakage that could actually react with ozone etc., effecting the polar vortex! [thus affecting global heat transport and ozone, e.g.] but then i've seen others that say leakage probably small...but where's the energy come from to split the water?). wind is a momentum sink (actually modifying microclimates - probably not too big a deal unless you're affected by that microclimate somehow; another wind farm? a farm that "feels" the change in microclimate?), possibly very ugly, not very energy dense. solar has production waste issues, expense (so political hurdles), etc.. hydro (dams, displaced land area). even james lovelock supports nuclear (clean...until a mistake happens: even WITH negative reactivity coefficients, there are plenty of other mistakes that can happen along the history of the fuel). nuclear does seem something to consider at this stage being so energy dense and clean (until the mistake), but... etc..

demand seems a good one to look at.

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by hello-world

..... even james lovelock supports nuclear (clean...until a mistake happens: even WITH negative reactivity coefficients, there are plenty of other mistakes that can happen along the history of the fuel). nuclear does seem something to consider at this stage being so energy dense and clean (until the mistake), but... etc...

Sounds like you've also read The Oil Factor by Leeb....you hit all the high points.

About nuke power, very odd thing happened in 2006. One of the founders and chairmen of Green Peace 'retired' and did a total flip flop, coming out IN FAVOR of nuclear power. After 30 years of milking the wallets of gullible fearful people (OMG OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA GLOW IN THE DARK!!!) he now has a new gig as co-chair of a new industry-funded initiative, the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which supports increased use of nuclear energy.

There are many cases of talking heads on TV telling you about the dire dangers we all face from (Insert name of "hot button" issue here) and asking for your money. IMO, we're are living in a nation where we are being conned at every step by all sorts of slick money raisers, who live high on the hog while hob-nobbing with our congressional reps. Anyone with an open mouth has an open hand they want us to fill with our money for their alledged cause.

Full story at: Going Nuclear

[hello-world]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

Sounds like you've also read The Oil Factor by Leeb....you hit all the high points.

About nuke power, very odd thing happened in 2006. One of the founders and chairmen of Green Peace 'retired' and did a total flip flop, coming out IN FAVOR of nuclear power. After 30 years of milking the wallets of gullible fearful people (OMG OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA GLOW IN THE DARK!!!) he now has a new gig as co-chair of a new industry-funded initiative, the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which supports increased use of nuclear energy.

There are many cases of talking heads on TV telling you about the dire dangers we all face from (Insert name of "hot button" issue here) and asking for your money. IMO, we're are living in a nation where we are being conned at every step by all sorts of slick money raisers, who live high on the hog while hob-nobbing with our congressional reps. Anyone with an open mouth has an open hand they want us to fill with our money for their alledged cause.

Full story at: Going Nuclear

i haven't read that leeb work, but i am interested in this stuff, so... i'll check out that book when i get a chance. thanks.

i think lovelock, for example, just figures we'd d*mn well better do SOMEthing soon, and that's the least disagreeable way from his standpoint. i know nuclear power has undergone some changes in technology over the past couple decades; some lessons learned from chernobyl, 3 mile, and probably even some miltary success with it. not to mention what removal in time can do for the pespective. that might have something to do with that aboutface, but, sounds like you might know more about what else there might be going on there than i do. either way, the nuclear one is a tough one. people can be pretty inventive, and not necessarily for the better with powerful technology at their disposal.

as for some of the "hot button issues", i suppose you have a sense of some of my strong educated hunches on at least one of them. part of why it seems worth considering some of what we're talking about. plenty of other reasons to consider what we're talking about, though...

ah. i just read your posted article. thanks for that, too. yeah, that article hits a lot of these points. and more. interesting article.

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by steveco.

Yes but someone in Highlands ranch or out in aurora could say the same thing. Most suburban neighboorhoods have basic services fairly close by

That is exactly my point. Most people would probably be able to swing it on 5 gallons of gas a week, especially if they could take public transportation. The suburbs are not simply "bedrooms" where everyone leaves in the morning to go to work downtown. The fact that there are services nearby also means there are jobs nearby, for some anyway. I don't think a suburban family would have any more trouble with this than a city family.