Carrol -- on these issues I'm doing what anyone not an expert has to do
-- choosing which experts to believe. Virtually all serious
environmentalists who look at this issue seem to agree. Barry Commoner
is who I learned this from back in the 70's. Amory Lovins is good on
the technical end today -- though with a touchingly naive belief in the
power of markets to bring it about. (However the latest electricity
deregulation seems to have brought some doubt to his opinions.)
Ultimately, society has to make this type of decision -- and since
experts will always conflict -- in the end people will have take the
trouble to inform themselves and decide who is the more reliable expert.
Also there are some basis judgement. On the micro level this stuff is
pretty much available now.
In terms of the 'net energy sink' issue on solar -- Ivan Illvich is the
guy who made this argument -- and I was able to do the math to tell you
that his numbers (at least) did not make sense.
Don't know how Nuclear energy got into this; I first learned this stuff
when I was in the no-nukes movement. I don't think I advocated Nukes at
all (though Jim Heartfield might).
On some specific issues -- superinsulated houses do not have to be
"sick" houses. They can be well ventilatated with lots of air changes
via heat exchangers and bafflers.
And it terms of Global warming -- again we have to make judgements on
stuff like this. The arguments that it is happening, and due in part to
human intervention seem overwhelming. The belief that laypersons cannot
rationally hold opinions on these subjects leads to the kind of "all
opinions are equal" stuff that insists that creationism be taught
alongside the theory of evolution in biology classes -- or that both be
omitted.
Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> Gar Lipow wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Every bit of it? Super-insulation will not save energy in Canadian
> > houses? Waste heat from electricity generation cannot heat Canadian
> > buildings and water? Longer lasting goods would not save the energy need
> > for more frequent manufacture in Canada? More efficent autos will not
> > burn less fuel in Canada? Agriculturural (and forestry) waste could not
> > produce fuel or feedstocks in Canada? Canada has no city dwellers who
> > could benefit from more mass transit?
>
> Gar, Most of these proposals in the short run, and some perhaps even
> in the long run, are energy sinks -- that is their implementation would consume
> more energy than they would save after being implemented. Nuclear power
> is definitely an energy sink (and will continue to be so for thousands of years
> after its utilization ceases).
>
> Let me post one of my recurrent warnings against the invocation of fragments
> of scientific learning by non-biologists, non-chemists, non-climatologists,
> non-engineers. I myself don't have a clue as to whether in fact Gar's utopian
> suggestions are energy sinks or energy savers -- and neither does he.
>
> Amateur 'knowledge' of climatology and energy physics is probably not quite
> so destructive as amateur 'knowledge' of evolutionary science (which can
> generate fantasies, for example, about the evolutionary justification of "trophy
> wives") but can nevertheless lead to false fears and, more importantly, naive
> conceptions of what can be done.
>
> Carrol
