Text 1178, 213 rader
Skriven 2006-06-01 16:56:00 av Robert E Starr JR (1624.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
  * * * This message was from Carl to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *   
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <W9CdnWO9pvIJ2eLZnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY: <4e4tu7F1bfpnnU2@individual.net>

"Paul Harper" <paul@harper.net> wrote in message 
news:c5au7215jvi9j0eei10nboadkejqd72uht@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:47:43 +0000 (UTC), "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I suppose it depends on who you mean by "We."  Increase home heating costs
>>by 20-30% and some people will significantly suffer.  It's not the power
>>companies that absorb the cost.
>
> "We": How about starting with the US and Western Europe. That covers
> the majority of the wealthy countries on the planet. "We" can afford
> it.

Still abstract.

It gets down to every individual, rich or poor would have to pay 
significantly more for everything.  Transportation costs, heating costs, 
food costs...everything.  Wages will need to go up to compensate, and more 
jobs will be offshored.  Consequences that some will consider justified and 
others won't, but consequences all the same.

>
> On a more local level, "we" is everyone. The very concept of social
> engineering an anathema to people used to the idea of looking after
> themselves first and others last. (I'm not having a go at you here, in
> case of any misunderstanding!). We are going to have to accept that
> there is a price to pay for the confortable existence we have, and we
> are going to have to recognise that we have, in no uncertain terms,
> been living on the cheap lately.

Paul, you continue to speak in abstract.

I live comfortably.  I'm not rich compared to American standards, but 
clearly I'm rich compared to many around the worrld.  Are you asking me to 
reduce my standard of living to the lowest common denominator?  Would you 
consider me greedy for not wanting to reduce my children's existence to 
that? Anything less is not putting my existence on an equal level as others 
around the world.   There's not a chance that you'll ever convince people to 
do that.   Specifically, where does your idealism intersect give way to 
pragmatism?

That was not meant to be a shot, I just couldn't think of a better way to 
put that.

What ***exactly*** are you asking of people?

>
> The days when it is acceptable for energy companies to make billions
> of <insert currency name here> profit every year while doing little or
> nothing about the problems they cause have to be limited now.
>
> I would even go so far as to say nationalise them (or in the case of
> us here in the UK, re-nationalise). Take them into genuine public
> ownership, take the grasping shareholders out of the equation and do
> the job properly. Make all energy companies, by law, non-profitmaking.

Energy companies aren't national any more, how do you force them to be?
Which govt will control Exxon, etc?  How will that affect drilling rights, 
etc?
Energy will become even more of a weapon.


>>There are a number of technologies that can be used to help...and they
>>should be...but none of them are a universal panacea.  How many solar 
>>panels
>>or windmills would be needed to power NYC?  How many birds would be killed
>>by the windmills (apparently a significant problem in areas they are
>>deployed).  Most of the technologoes that can help work on smaller scales.
>
<snip>
>
>>It's fine and correct to say that we should do more. We should....but
>>specifically ... who should do what? At a national or international level,
>
> International won't work. It's been tried, and narrow national
> interest gets in the way. It will have to be, initially, at a national
> level by an enlightened few acting as leaders and examples.
>
>>what technologies are you saying should be used?
>
> On the basis that it's a proven technology, Wind initially.
> Developments in tide and wave power are coming shortly, so when they
> do, bring them in. Fission is the only acceptable form of nuclear
> power (IMHO), but even with the newly-announced reactor programme in
> Southern France, it'll be decades before that becomes a viable
> proposition.
>
>>At a private level, what should be used?
>
> All manner of things. Private wind turbines can be used - they're
> expensive at the moment, but there is a junior school in my county
> that runs virtually all of its electrical equipment using a turbine in
> the school field - and it's not a huge one either. Hot water - stick a
> couple of black-painted radiators on the roof and there you go. No
> nasty photovoltaic cells, though as I said elsewhere, the manufacture
> of these is improving, so maybe they'll be acceptable soon.

There are a lot of new technologies right around the corner.  I seem to 
recall a Canadian company finding a way to get significantly more energy 
from a cheaper solar planel.  I also read about "flying windmills" that can 
capture more power directly from the jet stream.  Lots of things coming 
soon...just not quite yet.

>
>>Are people to be compelled to use them and how much does it
>>cost each person?
>
> Further more - recycling. Here where I live, we have a collection
> every week - but only for recycleable material: glass, tins, plastics,
> paper, garden rubbish. Non-recycleable stuff is collected only every
> fortnight.
>
> I'd go further. Only collect non-recyclable once a month.
>
> Doesn't cost people anything except a little time.

Here they don't pay for themselves. The recycling plants usually get 
taxpayer money.
I'm not saying that's bad, just adjusting your assertion a bit.

>
>>Do we know how much energy can really be produced by <pick whichever
>>trechnology you wish>?
>
> Well, taking wind power, the UK will be generating 10% of its
> electrical needs using renewables by 2010 and 15% by 2015. We are
> ahead of schedule in terms of installations to meet this target and it
> wouldn't surprise me to see us hit 20% by 2015..
>
>
> In my view, the aim is too low, and the timescale too long, but it
> *is* a step in the right direction. A recent survey of UK people
> showed 83% in favour of wind power, which is encouraging.
>
>>Not just estimates by proponents, but hard numbers.
>>What are the trade-offs (there are always trade-offs)?  Specifically how
>>much more will it cost and who will pay?  It's great to talk in 
>>abstract...I
>>was asking for something more concrete.
>
> http://www.bwea.com/ref/faq.html

I have no particular cite for this, but I seem to recall hearing that there 
is a
significant problem and a huge cost in trying to convert the US power
grid to accomodate something like a large scale wind farms.

I'm not saying this is true. I only mention this because I'd like to hear
from anyone that knows more about this.

>>Until someone proposes a *specific* plan and does the analyisis...it's 
>>just
>>good intentions.  I'm not aware of anyone that's done this.  I may have
>>missed it, but if it were as simple as you suggest I would think a 
>>specific
>>plan would have been proposed and touted.
>>
>>If someone were to do the science and a real feasability and cost/benefit
>>analysis and came up with something tangable that could be debated ... 
>>then
>>I think there'd be a real chance for public debate and some kind of 
>>action.
>
> I tend to find cost/benefit calculations more useful when the
> "benefit" side of the equation is phrased as the negative of "what is
> the cost of *not* doing this?".

That's fine too. It's a fair question.  If we don't, will it the effect on 
global
warming be 50% worse?  5%?  0.000005%?  Will global warming reverse?

Will people have to make significant sacrifices for negligable benefits?

Different people have different threshholds where the sacrifice is not worth
the cost. It's hard to develop a consensus when you can't give specifics on
the benefit or the cost.

>
> So: what's the cost of carrying on as we are and doing nothing at all
> (or no more than we are)?
>
> With sea levels going to rise (bye bye NYC, London, Singapore, Hong
> Kong and most coastal towns and cities), climate going to change
> (shifting wheat production to Greenland or the Sahara depending on
> which way it tips) and the like. What's the cost of that?

Depends on how much it rises.  There's also a theory that global warming
will recreate the same scenerio that caused the mini ice age too.

>
> Sure, easy to dismiss as flights of fantasy and hyperbole, but the
> detractors will be the first to complain when the waves start pouring
> over their thresholds.

There was a story on CNN yesterday that said that the arctic was
once tropical.

(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/31/ap/tech/mainD8HUVKSO0.shtml)

Perhaps it's going to happen anyway?  If so, does that change your view
on how some of the money and resources should be spent?

Carl
                              
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)