----- Original Message -----
From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 4:41 AM
Subject: Re: Europe, the US, and Environmentalism
> 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.
>
Well, there are also reports coming in about power lines causing cancer,
magnetic fields curing illnesses, copper bracelets curing arthritis,
astrology working, etc. Reports coming in do not equate with things
actually happening.
Of course, reports coming in can also be valid. Smokers dying of lung
cancer, a rise in global temperature, and vaccines preventing polio are
among these reports.
How does one separate the wheat from the chaff here? I'd argue that our
best chance is the methodology of science. I think it was Richard Feynman
who said "science is our best method of not fooling ourselves."
Before I take the time to go over the results of scientific analysis of
claims such as these, I'd like to ask one question. Do you accept the
validity of scientific analysis? Would you agree that claims of death or
damage need to be able to stand up to scientific scrutiny?
Dan M.
