![]() There are ways to provide more efficent transportation (buses and trains) however the high price coupled with the crime and grime factors, and the inconvience of the schedules and stops makes this an issue that they can't live with. People don't want smaller cars (in general), at least in the US. The demand for technology is exceeding the supply resulting in consumer unhappeness, as measured from the unpopularty of those smaller cars, and the increase in the life times of cars. Goverment demands on car milages and smog reductions, has only seemed to create smaller cars to meet those standards. We will then have to accept some carbon until the technology advances. The best way to reduce energy consumption is advances in technology. Although I hate those swirly light bulbs, if they save energy over other light producing technology, and the price is competive, they should reduce the demand for energy in third world countries.Īnother thing we can do is export efficency technology in power production so that less fuel in burned in third world countries to produce each kW.Īt the point we are at, reducing our lifestyle, or asking anyone else to not attempt to develop to our life style is asking for a war. cranky108 (Electrical) 31 Oct 13 13:34Ībout the best thing we can do is export energy reducing technology. Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati RE: another kick at the climate change cat. where's the money going ? what's it doing to fix the "problem" ? If we're going to pay taxes on carbon (through whichever scheme you choose). but then maybe that's one answer to the question, and we'll make truly huge investments in these "green" energies so that we'll increase the fraction of energy we derive from these sources, maybe enough to significantly reduce the carbon output. truly sustainable energy would mean using energy resources at the same rate as they're being created (ie no fossil fuels or nukes) or available (solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal). it is also IMHO nonsense to talk about sustainability. carbon sequestration is also IMHO a nonsense technology unless you're talking about growing trees (and biomass). It is IMHO nonsense to talk about reducing CO2 production to 1990 (or 2000 or whatever) levels principally because developing economies (China in particular, and probably India as well) are going to be burning more and more fossil fuels. we're reluctant to persue the nuclear option, though i wish more research money was being directed at fusion power which i see as the only truly long term option. we can be a little smarter and make power stations more efficient but essentially we're dependent on fossil fuels. We can't (won't) stop burning fossil fuels, we need the cheap energy. i worry that developing economies are progressing along the same energy path that the developed countries have used, and that maybe there are "better" choices today. becoming more efficient in our energy consumption is clearly a good thing, though i suspect that won't gain us significant relief. clearly there are some places that can really benefit for these (because of sustained sunlight or wind or water resources or etc). adding hydro, geo-thermal, wind and solar power aren't bad things. Once you say that then i think it's reasonable to ask is this a bad thing, ie do we want to change ? We have to acknowledge that energy is the means to developing our economies. maybe a simple message but one that has divided those wanting more explanation. this is i think too wishy-washy "for the masses" so we're being told carbon is changing the climate. I think it's reasonable to say that the amount of carbon we putting into the atmosphere has the potential to affect global climate. i think the record shows that previously (say before the 20th century) that CO2 increased sometime after the global temperature increased. I think it's reasonable to say that atmospheric CO2 levels change with climate. I think it's reasonable to say that the global climate is changing and that this would be happening even without mankind's contributions. Though, of course, once we start doing this on a global scale and derive meaningfull amounts of energy this way then there'll be unforeseen side effects. The second problem is meant to say that bio-fuels, which take from and return to the atmosphere over a short timescale, probably won't have the same effect on the global climate as compared to fossil fuels. I think the problems with burning fossil fuels are that we're returning carbon to the atmosphere at an unnatural rate, and that there was a very long interval between when the carbon was deposited from the atmosphere and when it's getting returned to it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |