----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Minettte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 10:40 PM Subject: RE: Why so little renewable energy 30 years after the sweater speach?
> > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Robert Seeberger >> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 4:06 PM >> To: Killer Bs Discussion >> Subject: Re: Why so little renewable energy 30 years after the >> sweater >> speach? >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Dan Minettte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> >> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 11:05 AM >> Subject: Why so little renewable energy 30 years after the sweater >> speach? >> >> >> > >> > I think I have the answer...the US is the only country/region in >> > the >> > developed world with an abundance of food and wood producing >> > land. >> > >> >> Canada? > > Fair enough....I guess I tend to think of Canada as a US suburb. > <grin> <G> Thinking about it a bit, there might be some second tier candidates (though I'm not too strong on this sort of geography) like perhaps Georgia (in Asia), or Brazil and maybe Argentina. I'm tempted to add Russia, but I'm thinking they import much of their food (or at least were in recent years). > >> I think too that you have to stress (as we have over the years) >> that >> as long as energy prices remain low (and even as high as they >> currently are, they are still low) there is little impetus to >> investigate much less deploy alternative energy sources. > > OK, I didn't explicitly mention that alternative means are now > available but > at prohibitively high costs explicitly....and I probably should > have. The > cost would be so high that going to sources that are considered > green for > the majority of world power need would cause a horrendous, long term > world > depression. So, we are sorta talking about flip sides of the same > thing....not really differing much at all....if I read you right. > To be honest, I believe I have learned a good deal of the basics from your arguments over the years and have come to the understanding that energy independence, reduction of pollution, and clean energy have impediments in their paths that are primarily economic and secondarily technical. I think we have done quite well with wind energy over the last few years and it may double or triple in capacity in the next decade or so. But for wind to be a real "player" in energy production (5% or greater) there will have to be a new method of incorporating wind into the energy infrastructure that would allow for wind energy to be used "on demand". (Wind energy could be utilized as stored hydrogen with fuel cells as generators called into action on demand, and network telemetry and control over powerline networking as part of a highly decentralized power network that augments other forms of generation.) Well.....that is an example of something that could help some. It is my opinion that the biodiesel and ethanol fuels are just stopgap measures that allow vehicle manufacturers to continue doing pretty much what they have been doing, and the way they have been doing it, for over a century. Probably a necessary evil, but one that encourages them to continue to drag their feet. Unless people suddenly decide they want all electric vehicles or decide to invest in a hydrogen infrastructure (that we cannot supply hydrogen for) then little will change with autos. We are not doomed, but these changes are going to be quite difficult and more than a little expensive. More nukes would help. xponent Small Examples Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
