>Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:27:24 -0500
>From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
>Subject: [Fwd: [CrashList] Why 'alternatives' are no alternative]
>Mark's extended study of and commentary on the energy
>problem are of immense importance. I think the following post on
>alternative energy sources is worth careful consideration.
>Carrol
>- -------- Original Message --------
>Subject: [CrashList] Why 'alternatives' are no alternative
>Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:38:47 +0100
>From: Mark Jones <jones118 at lineone.net>
>Reply-To: crashlist at lists.wwpublish.com
>To: crl <crashlist at lists.wwpublish.com>,"Marxism-Thaxis at Lists.
>wpublish. Com" <marxism-thaxis at lists.wwpublish.com>
>It is said frequently and often nowadays that the future economy will be
>'hydrogen-driven'. Most of what is written on the subject shows signs
>of
>being untouched by the human mind. For one thing, hydrogen is an
>energy-carrier, not an energy-source. You have to *manufacture*
>hydrogen,
>and it is an energy-intensive process, requiring huge amounts of
>electricity. Where will the electricity come from?
Unmentioned in this discussion is the potential for using energy much more efficiently than at present. There are countless examples of this potential, but for illustrative purposes consider the single-occupant of the Ford Expedition SUV traveling the usual two-mile trip in a vehicle other than the 5000 lb. 300 hp. Expedition: to wit, something more like a covered wheelchair powered by an efficient weed-eater motor.
On the West Coast there was over twenty years ago at least one outstanding example of this increased-efficiency thinking. Utilities were forced to buy insulating covers for their customers rather than build new power plants. Some partly-built nuclear plants were abandoned as a result of this thinking.
I was involved several years ago in a similar effort regarding transportation in the four-county region abutting Puget Sound (near Seattle). Our econometrician was the same guy who did the model for the utility-oriented effort mentioned above. Our least-cost/full-cost model suggested that the best use of a billion transportation dollars was in building bike paths in every town in four counties. An "energy-efficient" public transit system was way behind.
M. Ferro