Dan Minette wrote in response to a mail by Charlie:
> But, the bottom line is that, over the moderate term and without doing
> tremendous damage to the world ecconomy, we can only lessen the increase in
> the use of coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy. We can also pick
> between these four, to some extent.
>
> And, if we do things like raise taxes, we will drive hardworking people into
> bankrupcy. They will be hurt and angry about it. It is still the right
> thing to do, but it will not be without harm.
This is in my eyes utter nonsense (even though you keep repeating it) and is
only intended to scare people. Why do I say this? Well as can be seen in the
Netherlands all new and other than fossil fuel related types of energyproduction
are also producing a lot of new, other and different kinds of job and money
opportunities. Crying wolf (painting doom and damnation for everones pockets)
each time discussion of energy consumption tends to be shifted towards other
sources than fossil fuel doesn't really help development of these new
techniques. It's a long and slow process and we may be into fossil fuel for a
long time still, but in the end the market will adjust. As it always did and
always will when there is money to be made.
Also nonsense is Dan's desire to phrase the usefullness of each and every type
of alternative energy source in universally applicable terms and then averaging
them out over lots of countries. Mostly countries who haven't been working on
this subject or who aren't investing into them because lack of interest / money
or impracticallity of application.
You are perfectly correct that alternative energy isn't cheap when you have to
start up everything from ground zero. But you have to start somewhere. Basing
progress in such a new sector on an average and then calling these sources not
viable, not usefull or even irrelevant (in what to me seem utter nonsensical
circumstances where other techniques would work perfectly well if they would be
developed and applied) doesn't do the trick here. There is just not the ONE and
ONLY perfect 'one fit all' solution. In that respect you are absolutely correct.
Oil and coal are indeed a lot easier (and for the moment still) cheaper and much
better applicable under _all_ circumstances. But different problems need
different solutions. Sometimes compromise is required and for certain projects
to work a combination with fossil fuel is still necesary.
See, for Cyprus sunboilers work, in the Netherlands they work as well but in a
different way and not to the extend as in Cyprus. Here they use it to preheat
cold water. This then is heated further with conventional heating where and if
necesarry. Thereby they are cutting energy consumption for heating water through
conventional means. The Dutch use wind energy (and have done so for centuries)
efficiently without losing large surface areas. A windmill here and there can
already make a difference. New Zealand is rather happy with its geothermal
energy. And so on. To you they may be only small initiatives but they are
growing in number and in size because they have been proven to work efficiently
and costeffective if you give it a chance.
There is still a long long way to go. But refusal to work on this sources just
based on the assumption that it might cost jobs, may increase taxes or will have
an effect on the comfortable position of the oil and coal industry or just
because it isn't generally everywhere and always applicable isn't the way to get
started.
As for the prognosed increase in energy consumption... Well there are still a
lot of ways to counter that. Banning large unnecessary havy cars with big fuell
consumpions by taxing them appropriatly is just a start in my eyes. It workes
here. Taxes are based on weight of the car and the increase in taxation is
exponentially with weight of the 'beast' you drive) But on that subject the US
still has a long long long long long way to go. As I got it, the general (and
rather selfish) consensus in the US seems to be: 'Fuck the future, long live
consumption'
At least we are trying to change and this is not just to keep the greenies quiet
(As I believe was insinuated by Dan somewhere). It may not hold for all European
countries but as far as I can see the Dutch are making progress.
---------------------------------------------------
And now for Dan's favourite. A few numbers on
http://www.shell.nl/nl-nl/content/0,4368,28917-66787,00.html
for the Dutch estimated energy consumption in 2000. Consumption has been stable
although there has been an increase in BNP for 2000 in respect to 1999 of 4%.
Shell concludes that the economy is getting less energy intensive (as was also
concluded by the Dutch and Belgium ministery of economy and by the EU and a few
of its institutes dealing with energy). Minor dust cloud here is that there is a
major increase in mobility during the last few years. A problem that they are
currently working on.
As for total energy intensity in the industry there is a drop since 1985. So
more industry, more money and even more wealth but unfortunatly for Dan not more
energy consumption. Doesn't really fit the doom scenario I'm afraid.
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Results show that actions taken by the EU to control energy usage is finally
producing results.
Tabel 2: Energy-intensity in the EU - variation in %
Periode Eur15 B D F Nl UK
1985/1995 -7,1 -8,1 -9,3 -5,3 -7,9 -13,5
1995/1997 -6,7 +5,1 -7,3 -6,0 -5,6 -6,0
Source: Eurostat + calculation M.E.Z , Bestuur Energie
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Also from Eurostat 23 September 1997 (its a bit older stuff)
Initiative follows the 1992 Rio Declaration
� Total final energy consumption of the EU is stable. But in transport it
continues to rise - by 45% between 1980 and 1992.
Use of natural gas is up 50% over the last decade. And 55% more electricity is
used - due to the boom in electrical appliances. EU-wide, each of us consumes an
average 2,388 kg of oil equivalent (kgoe) a year (1994). Portugal consumption is
the lowest (1,323 kgoe).
� The publication says dependence on non-renewable resources is unsustainable in
the long term. But EU consumption of renewable energy accounts for a mere 5% of
total energy consumption. It�s comparatively high in new Member States Finland
(18%), Austria (23%) and Sweden (24%); very low in the UK (0.6%) and Belgium
(0.8%).
� Estimated life of EU coal reserves is 209 years. The world figure is 147 years
with the USA 126 and Japan 117. Germany has 417 years, the UK 42 and France only
15. At its current rate of production, Ireland�s coal will last 14,000 years!
EU spending on environmental protection accounts for between 1% and 2% of GDP.
In most Member States the private sector spends at least as much as the public
sector. Latest data show 40% is on water treatment, 28% on waste processing and
18% on curbing air pollution.
--------------------------------------------
Sonja
