I don't understand. Is the YES meant to imply that electricity production
depends ultimately upon fossil fuels? Surely very little electricity is
produced by burning diesel or gas. Or are you talking about cars that burn fuel
and charge batteries that run them? There are also
cars and trucks that run on batteries alone of course and these can be charged
at regular outlets with electricity generated by water power, or less likely
wind or solar power. What are we talking about? By the way there is also
thermal power for heating, used quite a bit in Iceland for example. I use wood.
With a good stove it is not all that polluting. Of course this is feasible only
in certain locales. But this area is filled with crap wood, quaking aspens or
white poplar. They are short lived and right now you wouldn't want to hug them
unless you
like squishing tent caterpillars
As far as home heating is concerned surely there is less and less reliance
on fossil fuels and more on electricity. Electricity can also be supplemented
by solar panels and also storage with heat pumps etc.
Does being twice as efficient in pollution terms mean that they produce
twice the pollution for the samo amount of power :)
Cheers, Ken Hanly.
Brad De Long wrote:
> > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/28/00 10:46AM >
> >Instead, the government should deal with the problem by increasing the
> >amount and quality of public mass transit drastically, including getting
> >many more of these natural-gas-driven wheelchair-friendly busses. Much of
> >the expense can be covered by the gas tax. In general, the idea is to move
> >toward the best W. European model.
> >
> >_____________
> >
> >CB: Yes, and what about electric powered vehicles ? Do they depend
> >on fosssil fuels ultimately ?
>
> Yes, but the power plants that generate electricity are roughly twice
> as efficient in pollution terms as internal combustion engines.
