Text 1419, 146 rader
Skriven 2006-06-03 16:20:00 av Robert E Starr JR (1865.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <4qm182pecu4gppvr8ncvh9bmm5dbedbfcm@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <Kd-dnaIhFpZvmObZnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com>
On Wed, 31 May 2006 23:48:16 +0000 (UTC), Kurt Ullman
<kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <b09s729thcfq9g9i5v54i1jr5mikc575cd@4ax.com>,
> Wesley Struebing <strueb@carpedementem.org> wrote:
>
>> Chances (imho) are very good that we CAN'T do very much.  But, why do
>> you see a problem in doing what we can?

> Because we probably could DO a lot more than we could AFFORD to do. 
> There is virtually no cost/benefit analysis of the little we can do.

Do to prevent a further buildup of greenhouse gases or remove the ones
already there? Because I don't know any way of doing the latter (there
are some schemes, but they're as yet rather science fictional), and
these gases will continue to warm the earth for some time. But as far
as I can tell, ending the greenhouse emissions that continue to make
the problem worse is a fairly straightforward proposition. The only
impediment is political.

Regarding the economic consequences, this from Krugman:

" 'Al Gore's global warming movie: could it destroy the economy?' Fox
News asked.

"Well, no, it couldn't. There's some dispute among economists over how
forcefully we should act to curb greenhouse gases, but there's broad
consensus that even a very strong program to reduce emissions would
have only modest effects on economic growth. At worst, G.D.P. growth
might be, say, one-tenth or two-tenths of a percentage point lower
over the next 20 years. And while some industries would lose jobs,
others would gain."

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F20D17F73A5A0C758EDDAC0894DE404482


Of course, that doesn't address the cost/benefit ratio, but it does
suggest that halting our contribution to global warming is
economically feasible. I've reached much the same conclusion from an
engineering perspective.

        Transporation

We can produce cellulosic ethanol for no more than the cost of
gasoline -- according to a study by General Motors, enough of it to
replace half of our current gasoline consumption. And plug-in hybrids,
which are less than five years away, can cut overall fuel consumption
by 60% without sacrificing performance or vehicle size, more if we do,
and that means that our automobile fleet could be powered entirely by
cellulosic ethanol.

Similarly, trucks and locomotives could be powered by biodiesel.
Aviation fuel can also be made from biological sources.

What's more, economical hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are on schedule,
with GM slated to unveil their cost-competitive system in 2010. It
costs about $2.27 (I'm quoting from memory, but it's close enough) to
make enough hydrogen from wind to replace a gallon of gasoline, and
the supply is in practice unlimited. Thus by 2015 or so we'll see
economical high performance cars on the road that need produce no
pollution whatsoever.

        Electricity

France shifted virtually all of its electricity generation to fission
power during the energy crisis years ago, and they remain one of the
world's most prosperous. We could do the same, and that makes a fairly
comfortable worst-case scenario for power generation.

Nuclear power costs somewhat more than coal at approximately 7 cents
per kilowatt hour, but at worst it would add only pennies per kW-hr to
our power bills. And that minor increase would to some extent be
offset by reduced indirect costs, e.g., pollution damage to monuments,
forests, and people, military expenses, oil company subsidies, and the
like.

But wind seems to be an even better alternative. We have enough of it
to supply the nation's power needs five times over, and at this point
it costs only 3-5 cents per kW hour at up to 20% penetration -- in
fact, we could get 20% of our power from wind right now without adding
anything to our power bills.

Wind doesn't suffer from waste disposal problems and costly plant
decommissioning, it isn't susceptible to terrorism, the government
doesn't have to insure it against a Chernobyl-scale disaster, and it
doesn't contribute to proliferation.

Beyond 20%, you have to add storage -- usually hydroelectric -- for
the times when the wind doesn't blow, and it's hard to know exactly
how costly that would be since it's highly dependent on circumstance.
But as far as I can tell storage would add perhaps 50% to the cost of
the power, meaning the power would cost perhaps 4.5 - 7.5 cents per
kW-hr. That's cheaper than nuclear power and not far from what we pay
today.

Which leaves industrial, commercial, and residential power
consumption. Most of that can be converted to electricity, with
biofuels or wind-generated hydrogen as a backup for situations in
which that isn't economically feasible, such as an apartment building
with a large steam plant. Now that ground source heat pumps are
available, it's no more expensive in most cases to heat with
electricity than with oil or gas.

In short, it would cost us fairly little to use alternative sources.
And I've stuck very close to what's available now, or in the final
stages of production. There will be even cheaper alternatives a few
years down the line. For example, the price of wind power has been
diminishing steadily, and this is expected to continue. Similarly,
projections suggest that the cost of cellulosic ethanol, which is now
perhaps $1.30 per gallon, will come down to 60 cents or so.

And there are also significant potential savings in improved energy
efficiency and other strategies -- insulating and caulking houses,
fixing and replacing HVAC equipment and ducts, using new lightweight
materials in cars, and so forth. A good national energy policy would
make sure they were used as soon as they became economical.

When indirect costs and subsidies are taken into account,
non-polluting fuels would quite likely save us money even before the
as-yet-uncertain costs of global warming are taken into account. And
when you consider the other consequences of our dependence on fossil
fuels, like sending money to countries that want to kill us, it
becomes something of a no-brainer.

Unfortunately, there's a big potential cost if we have to replace
existing equipment before the end of its lifespan. If the George W.
Bush hadn't reneged on the promise to limit greenhouse gases that he
made during the second presidential debate, we could have begun six
years ago, but as things now stand it's going to be two years before
we even begin to take action.

-- 
Josh

"I'm not going to play like I've been a person who's spent hours involved with
foreign policy.
I am who I am." - George W. Bush
                                                             
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)