1) Nuclear. Of course, most environmentalists are against this, too, but it’s the most cost-effective alternative to coal.

2) Solar. As long as you don’t mind solar panels the size of Delaware. The cost of traditional solar would likely cause riots among the masses, though. The satellite solar option is interesting, but it seems like it’s decades away, at best.

3) Hydro-electric. Not a bad option, but there aren’t any Hoover Dams in Florida. Good choice locally, bad alternative on a grander scale.

4) Green power. This is pretty trendy — chicken litter, landfill gas, etc. Only problem here is that it’s also cost prohibitive, and there simply isn’t enough of these resources to provide the power of even a large city, let alone an entire state.

5) Conservation. Best alternative available — but completely unenforceable. It’s up to each consumer to conserve — and it saves them money, too. But you can’t send the sherriff to people’s homes to make them turn off the lights when they’re not using them.

6) Brownouts and rolling blackouts. That’s what’s coming across the country if additional power resources aren’t constructed, and if America doesn’t conserve. So if you don’t like coal or nuclear, and you can’t make people conserve energy, get used to darkness and spoiled food.

Which option do you prefer…?

Agreed on all points for astronomy. It bugs me a bit less because I’m more interested in cosmology. So, going to the planetarium to hear Neil DeGrasse Tyson talk and show hubble images is actually more enjoyable to me than a telescope. Oh, and here in NYC, I consider the night sky more of a blue glow than a gray one. We certainly don’t see black without going at least 50 miles or more and not a really dark sky short of the Adirondacks.

I think planetaria are fun and great for educational purposes and shows, but they are just a substitute for a real dark sky and a telescope. I’ve got $1 Louis that there are very few posters here who could walk outside on a summer night and identify Vega, Deneb and Altair, the summer triangle. We (as a nation) have forgotten the night sky because cities turn it gray.

One nice thing about astronomy (as a hobby), you buy the equipment once and from then on everything is free, educational and amazing. As an added bonus, you don’t have to change the oil in a telescope

OTHO, astronomy as a profession means publishing and too much time waiting on these computers. Ah, well…..

I’m willing to concede that my idea of “the good life” is subjective if you are willing to admit the same

The problem is the greenies trying to make me give up everything that makes up my version of the American Dream whereas I’m not asking city dwellers to give up anything.

#46 – there’s plenty of land for those who want it. In an ideal world everyone would want it, but they don’t, therefore, plenty of land.

BTW: Driving home yesterday in 40mph gusts it was really hard to hold a lane – light cars were having an even worse time. Mongo says heavy truck good.

pmitchell has a habit of running whenever he is shown to be wrong. Don’t worry, he’ll be back with some other outlandish bullshit.

FYI: Catch and release is allowed in Central Park. Central Park is also ranked as the 11th best birding location in the lower 48, around 300 species if I remember correctly. Many people walk the park with binocs.

You’re right about the night sky here. But, it may be less real, but doesn’t get much better than our planetarium. Bring your binocs to that too. The projector can project images smaller than the naked eye can see. And, at certain events, you can virtually fly around the known universe at many times the speed of light.

As for natural landscapes, yup, you’d need to drive. Central Park only qualifies as naturalistic.

Well, most everything. You can’t see the night sky, go fishin on a whim’, see native and rare wildlife, the beauty of a natural landscape, etc. We’ll just agree to disagree, you watch what you like, and I’m goin’ fishin (always catch and release)’.

But since this thread is now so old, I’m guessing you’ll never see this post. Darnit. And let’s hope the power doesn’t go out, 40 floors of stairs is probably a real pain.

You know, because that would mean I would have to add another name to the list of dumb conservatives I’ve shut up…

We’re in complete agreement. I like some people. I like being around people and living in a city. I hate what humanity has done to this planet and believe us to be a blight on the planet. That’s where my misanthropic side comes from. I guess I’m a bit odd for liking people but hating the species as a whole.

It’s a beautiful old farmhouse built in 1860… Which means it leaks heat, is creaky, cold, damp, and full of bugs.

When buildings are properly maintained over the years, and upgrades are made like modern windows and such, an old house can have appeal, but I agree… I’d rather rebuild with new technology than live in an old house…

In fact, I’m honestly not all that fond of houses in general.

In YOUR ideal world…

In my ideal world I am within 1 block of everything I could ever need, I own no car, I have 100s of night life choices 7 nights a week, and I can see everything in the city because I’m on the 40th floor.

I’m willing to concede that my idea of “the good life” is subjective if you are willing to admit the same

#45 Scott, cities are horrible places

Go jump in one of ten thousand lakes.

When I worked at “major company” in Skokie, IL and lived in Edgewater (north part of Chicago, on the lake) I had a 20 minute commute. It was great.

When major company moved to Shaumberg, The Land of 1000 Olive Gardens, I had a 1 hour and 5 to 20 minute minute commute each way. When asked why I didn’t move to Shaumberg, my answer was, because then I’d live in Shaumberg.

Misanthropes (Scott excepted) often like the vast cradle of the barren wasteland outside the city, but I like people, the arts, culture, shopping opportunities, groceries delivered to the door, the “L”, Wrigley Field (which is on the “L”, great dining locations, not having the burden of a car, having a 24/7 doorman, and all the life enriching goodness of living in a great city.

I’m sorry. I thought you said zero impact. Prius falls far short of zero impact. Some hybrids are being used to improve performance rather than gas mileage. Compare the Accord with the Camry for an apples to apples comparison of one such case. Accord hybrid (last I checked) had a V6 and tremendous performance and terrible gas mileage. Camry has too big a 4 cyl for my tastes, but gets pretty decent mileage. Highlander on the other hand, still has a V6. I’d like to see some compact SUV options as well. Imagine the mileage of a 1.8 liter hybrid RAV4.

Still though, for the full size off-road crowd, how about a 2.5 liter diesel electric hybrid. In Africa, the 11 passenger safari vehicles with a 2.5 liter diesel and no electric motor get 24 MPG. Off-roading does not require a lot of horse power. On-roading does not require an SUV.

My preferred vehicle would be a diesel electric prius with solar panels and an HECE device installed. I think it would easily top 100MPG. Pluggable would be nice, but wouldn’t help me until NYC garages had a way to charge vehicles (for a fee of course).

But yes, it offends my sensibilities to use hybrids to continue our horrific trend toward bigger heavier vehicles with worse and worse fuel efficiency too. So, when you talk about a zero impact vehicle, these are not the droids you’re looking for … move along.

As for 10 acres per person. There isn’t that much land on the planet. you can aspire to it all you want. But, the land is not there for everyone to do so. Limit the human population (6 million sounds like a good number to me) or limit our land use. We don’t have an infinite planet.