----- Original Message -----
From: Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: W. on the Environment
> >
> > Why, that's how Europe promotes conservation. I don't get it. You seem
to
> > be arguing for cheap, abundant, energy that people will be careful to
use as
> > little of as possible. I proposed taxing it as a means of conservation,
and
> > you call it silly.
>
> Hold your horses here buddy. That is not entirely true. Taxes are used
> selectively as are subsidies to encourage the use of less environmentally
> polluting energy and to get people to use non peak hours for energy
consuming
> things.
I though the cost of gasoline in the Netherlands had risen, not dropped. At
http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/Natural_Resources/Energy/gasoline_prices/e
urope.html
it quotes the cost of gas in US dollars as $1.16/liter in 1996. In 1996,
the cost here, with tax, was about $0.30/liter. In 1998, it was about
$0.22/liter. The cost, without tax, was about $.24/liter in 96, and about
$.16/liter in 1998. The European cost before tax should be comperable. So,
you have around a 400% tax on gasoline.
> A lot of households already get their 'green' energy and/or have dual
> metering systems where the night time current is a lot cheaper.
I think its quite reasonable to have different on peak and off peak prices.
I can't imagine anyone arguing with that.
But as far as green energy goes, I looked at the actual use in Europe. At
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/total.html
we get the following tables.
source 1990 1999
Petroleum 43.5% 44.0%
Natural Gas 16.8% 22.4%
Coal 21.6% 13.4%
Hydroelectric Power 4.7% 5.0%
Nuclear Electric Power 12.5% 13.7%
Geothermal, Solar, 0.4% 1.1%
Wind, and Wood
and Waste Electric Power
The last category is renewable, at approximately 1% after 9 years of
subsidies in Europe. At other websites, sorry I don't have the site, but it
is a secondary site, I read about environmentalists complaining about the
waste electric power producing dioxins and about burning peat being included
in this category. I could not find out how much of the growth came from
these two sources.
The bottom line is that, with the exception of large scale hydro (which is
97% of all hydro) renewable are still a drop in the bucket. And, we find
at:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/hydro.html
that the share of renewable, including hydro, is expected to go down from a
9% share of total energy consumption to about 8% by 2020. This is due to
the fact that energy demand will continue to increase, while large scale
hydro projects will mainly be confined to developing nations.
> Also people are interested in wind/water energy.
>
We've tapped all the large scale hydro energy sources. I've already
mentioned the difficulties with wind.
> In Eindhoven they are now experimenting with solar boilers on a large
scale.
> They wanne be the first 'sun' city in the Netherlands. From what I've
heard it
> works.
As long as it is a subsidized showcase, sure. Have you ever wondered why
these new power sources never really take off? Its not because of the vast
conspiracy of oil men. Its because they are not economically viable without
a tremendous subsidy. So, to appease the Greens, politicians will subsidize
a few projects. But, the governments don't have enough money to subsidize
anything more than a token supply.
>So if you ask me taxes and subsidies aren't all that bad if it means our
air becomes cleaner
I wasn't sarcastic when I mentioned a high gas tax or a high tax on
electricity. It is a way to cut expenses. But, going to green sources of
power over the next 10 years would devastate the economy of the West. I saw
a website that quoted the German payment for solar power at about 0.55
Euros/kWh, compared to the typical wholesale price of close to 0.03 Euros.
(maybe 0.04-0.05 with the latest price rise). Wind would probably be
better, but I bet that converting to wind would double or triple the energy
price.
And this price would be folded into the price of goods that use energy in
their production.
Plus, green autos would make very inefficient use of this electrical power.
So that's the equivalent of probably a factor of 10 in auto fuel costs.
I think that would result in not just a recession, but a long term
depression.
>and we don't have to eat radioactive veggies.
Sonja, you would die if you didn't one of the three main sources of
radiation on the earth. :-) Do you know why?
I'll post more on what you wrote on radiation later.
Dan M.
