At 19:32 2-7-01 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
> > Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I got it, until now, your main
>objections
> > to renewable energy are, that it is subsidized and not yet much used.
>
>My real objection is that they are not economically viable, and that the
>proponents of renewable energy are using smoke and mirrors to cover this up.
>Why am I hearing the same story now that I heard 20 years ago.
I think there are at least three reasons for it.
First, R&D costs huge amounts of money. Problem with that is, the companies
that have the means do to that research don't mind spending all that money,
but only if it will lead to profits within a few years. Unfortunately, R&D
takes a lot longer, so big business wasn't (and presumably still isn't)
very interested.
Second, you'll need help from the government, on one hand for co-funding
R&D, on the other hand for promoting use of energy from renewable sources
(campaigns to make the public aware of the benefits, subsidies for
individuals and businesses to stimulate the switch). Unfortunately,
governments are bureaucratic organizations that are notoriously slow. First
they'll form a committee to formulate a plan. Then a committee is formed to
get the whole thing organized. Next, the actual research has to be done.
Then the next committee comes along to evaluate the results, after which
the cabinet, Congress and Senate have to discuss the evaluation report.
Once everyone pretty much agrees on what to do next, yet another committee
is formed to ... (etcetera). Sounds familiar?
Third, it wouldn't be the first time that one government starts pumping
money into a project, and then the next government (of different political
color) decides to shut down the project or at least make some major cuts in
the project's budget.
>There has
>been some small improvement, solar calculators and solar panels for remote
>sites are practical now. But the proponents don't present straight facts.
>That makes me suspicions.
Of course, that's exactly what the proponents say about the opponents (big
businesses that want to protect their current interests): they use smoke
and mirrors, don't present straight facts, tell outright lies, and try to
make problems look less serious than they really are.
> > But one of the things I do really miss in all your posts objecting to
>renewable
> > energy is how to reduce the amount of energy needed in _combination_ with
>usage
> > of renewable energy.
>
>Oh, I posted on that before. The practical way is to artificially raise the
>price with taxes.
Taxes aren't the only way; there are more ways to reduce the amount of
energy needed. You can save a lot by simply using your head.
Ever since the seventies, the various governments here have run public
awareness campaigns to promote saving energy. For years now, we have been
told about simple measures that can be taken. To name a few:
- isolate the walls, floors, roofs and windows in your house
- when you're the last person to leave the room, turn off the lights
- don't leave lights burning when you don't need them
- don't keep appliances (radio, tv, computers) running when you're not
using them
- don't use a hose to wash your car; a bucket of water will get the same
results, but uses a lot less water
- don't leave the heating on in rooms were it isn't needed
- use water-saving taps and toilets
- if possible, don't take the car for short distances: walk, or go by bike
These are all quite simple measures, but it definitely helps. And because
we have had this drilled into our heads for decades, for many people those
measures have become a normal part of their lives.
How much of such campaigns have there been in the US? Not all that many,
I'm afraid.
>I'm not saying things are hopeless. I'm saying there is a solution that it
>not politically correct. Why not dump political correctness and actually
>put forth a workable plan? Why not accept nuclear power. It is safe and
>clean.
Or at least, that's what the nuclear energy lobby has been telling us for
years. Unfortunately for them, the reports keep coming about increased
cancer rates among people living close to nuclear facilities, radioactive
waste seeping away in above-ground storage facilities, and life in rivers
and oceans dying because of the coolant dumped into those rivers and oceans.
I know the pro-nuclear lobby claims these reports are false, but I have a
hard time believing it -- especially since the lobby could lose huge
amounts of money if they would acknowledge that those reports are in fact
true. And it doesn't help that every time a pro-environment group points
out a problem, the pro-nuclear lobby immediately claims that it's all
nonsense and left-wing anti-nuke propaganda. That doesn't exactly boost
faith in the honesty of the pro-nuclear lobby.
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
