Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (5362)	3/10/2003 5:10:44 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

I wasn't considering efficiency in terms of dollars, although more efficient energy sources do often save dollars. I was considering efficiency in terms of thermodynamics. To my knowledge there is no standard way to measure efficiency in terms of how much environmental harm is done. I wouldn't consider that part of the efficiency of the energy source, but rather another thing that must also be considered in addition to the efficiency of the energy source. The environmental damage could be considered another cost in addition to the direct economic costs. Both costs have to be considered. If we could make energy for 1/2 the $ price but hundreds of millions died from the pollution that would be no bargain. Similarly if we could make energy with no pollution but it cost 50 times as much to do so, that would not be viable in most situations. "You can have a greater reduction of Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxide and other pollutants for less money and effort if you aim to reduce them, rather then aim to reduce CO2 with the hope that other forms of pollution will also go down." Not necessarily. In this case, the relationship is not based on hope but on science. If you merely mean to claim that fossil fuels produce more CO2 and more NO and SO2 then solar or hydro power or wind or geothermal or nuclear power then I agree. If you mean to disagree with the idea that the idea that you can greatly reduce NO and SO2 by modernizing power plants or switching fuels from coal to oil or gas while still emitting a lot of CO2 then I would have to say that you claim is not based on very solid science. "Most electrical power comes from the burning of fossil fuel." Well that is what environmentalists are trying to change. Most Canadian energy is produced by more secret methods "Secret methods"?? Canada has a lot of land, an good number of rivers, and a low population density. What works well for Canada might not do so well for the US or Japan. We don't have a lot of hydropower potential that is untapped. Besides hydropower can create its own set of environmental problems. To replace oil and gas and coal with wind and solar power would require covering areas the size of several states with windmills and solar generating equipment. We could build more nuclear plants but most environmentalists are against that idea. What form of electricity production would you have the US switch to? Listen, Tim? You won't always burn coal. Someday there will not be any? At its current rate of usage coal will last awhile, but your right it will eventually run out. If more coal gets burned as oil and natural gas supplies get lower then coal will not last quite as long as expected, but it still should last long past my lifetime and then are things like oil shale , and tar sands to work with, they will make more economic sense as more easily used energy sources become more scarce. By the time all of them are running low I would think technological and engineering advances would allow new sources. Perhaps we will have to use fission but it will be cheaper and safer, perhaps we will have fusion power plants, or large solar power satellites (although I'm not sure about the environmental impact of beaming enormous amounts of microwave radiation through the atmosphere to the collection points on the surface). Right now many of the alternatives to conventional fossil fuels are impractical or even impossible but this will not always be the case. Let me try this again: Is there a shortage of hot water, heat, gas, because people are concerned about the environment? When you increase the cost of producing something, you may price some people out of the market for it. Some people can't afford to adequately heat their home or apartment. And some of these at the margin may have been able to do so if it was not for the increased costs brought about by environmental concerns and regulations. Other people may have to restrict how much they drive, or make other accommodations due to these increased costs. Also hot water, heat, and gas, are not the only factors involved when considering how total production has decreased, or not increased as much as it could have, because of these environmental concerns. In many cases the trade offs are worth it, even obviously worth it, but to rationally consider the situation, the fact that their have been trade offs needs to be understood. Tim