Re: energy - That's the problem -- world

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

04/26/25 11:25:03am

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

Subject: Re: energy - That's the problem

Author:
krz

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 01/18/06 7:02:12am
In reply to: tjm 's message, "energy - That's the problem" on 01/17/06 3:28:40pm

>>(2) we are on the downside of getting new petroleum
>>resources (i.e., there's less to find so drill more is
>>not a viable solution)
>
>not conclusive as of today but it doesn't matter
>because its time is near if not here already so, agreed
>

I was thinking in this question about the ANWAR drilling. My personal perspective is to leave it - but not because I'm basing it on environmental concerns. I think that in order to get our country to radically shift to thinking and using other energy sources we can't continue the mentality of 'lets just find more oil' - even if ANWAR is a meaningful energy supply I don't think we should tap it as I'm fearful it would just allow procrastination. The majority of the country won't change habit without a strong impetus to change and I would prefer we provide that impetus.

In the motor control world we think of stable behaviors as having a deep 'attractor well' (think of it as a well). Walking is one of those movements - it is stable for the most part through life. In order to change how one walks on a regular basis (and without using more cognitive energy thinking about it) a huge amount of energy is needed to 'push' the behavior out of the well. These wells actually have mathematical properties that allow study. I have started to look at other behavior in this way - like propensity to exercise, eating. I think our personal habits of energy consumption could be placed here as well - takes something huge to move us out of a comfort pattern.

>>(4) Nuclear will not be a viable alternative in the US
>>because of public concern for waste and fear of the
>>energy source; nuclear will not be viable for the
>>world because of fear of converstion to weapons grade
>>(the US will prevent as much of this as possible)
>
>i disagree. doesn't europe power a significant [if not
>majority??] sector of its society with nuclear
>energy[france in particular]? i think that's true.

I do think Eruope uses nuclear to a large degree. I'm just not sure the US public is as able to embrace this technology out of fear of waste (the placement of spent fuel rods has been a controversial issue in congress for years). I'm also not sure the US will be supportive of developing economies as opposed to stable economies like some in Europe building their infrastructure using nuclear. I'm not sure we will be able to mirror the European experience here.
>
>>(6) any new energy source should not be vewied as
>>finite
>
>unless of course it is finite..do you mean we should
>not consider any new sources viable unless they are
>renewable? i agree with that but not sure i understand
>the other

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say we shouldn't consider the source viable - we may need 'transition' sources as we move forward, but I think an assumption of the search for viable energy sources is that we want to avoid the challenge we are now presented with petrol - building an economy on a finite resource.
>
>$20,000 would get you a nice solar home system that
>works in tandem with your electric company. i predict
>if we have good years with our business, we will be
>borrowing from the sun soon. i would like very much to
>set up a stout system. i am willing to gamble on its
>economic viability for the sake of being involved,
>like growing your own greens that in the end cost more
>dollars [factoring in all angles] than buying them
>from your neighbor. but they taste better.
>
>we'll see if there's a way to finance it. we do have
>the sun.

keep me posted on this. I've thought of a solar panel on the back of the house as well as started exploring whether it's even legal to put a wind generator on our private property (in town - codes and all). At some point I have visions of removing teh swing set and putting in a dry sauna in the back yard. I'd like that sauna to not pull electricity from WE Energies- so exploring how to do that.

>
>-tjm

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]