On 18/02/2010, at 11:29 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Charlie Bell <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On 13/02/2010, at 7:05 AM, Keith Henson wrote: >>> >>> I could go into detail including the economic models, but I don't know >>> if there is anyone on this list who can follow the physics, chemistry >>> and math. >> >> You'd be surprised. My maths isn't great (ie i'm not a natural >> mathematician), but my chemistry is fine... > > The US uses about 20 million bbs of oil per day. How much electric > power would it take to make that much synthetic oil.
What do you want synthetic oil for, except as plastic feedstock? Please explain what you're trying to do with that much sythetic oil, other than attempt to keep running the same kinds of ICE powered vehicles that we do today? >> Um, exactly what is this "global warming community" that preaches a "need to >> suffer"? That looks like just another straw man to me. There are nutters on >> both sides of the politics of climate, but the people really concerned about >> taking action are busy showing how you can live very similarly to the way >> you do now, without being so wasteful. Most of the science and engineering >> of starting to live sustainably is no-brainer stuff that's easy to >> implement. Sure, we do need a few big-ticket items and the space based solar >> that you've been advocating for years may well be one of those, but in the >> short-term there's a lot individuals and communities can do to green their >> homes, businesses and towns that will have at worst a very small affect on >> standard of living. > > Dr. David Mackay has put a lot of effort into this and doesn't think > so. His analysis is for the UK, but something similar applies to the > rest of the world as well. > >> Examples such as water tanks, solar hot water, decent insulation are small >> steps that if taken by large numbers of people can massively lower the >> demand for energy. > > That's not as true as most people hope. All the saving you can make > in a year are blown on one short aircraft trip. If you're talking per capita CO2 emissions, yes you're correct. If we're talking energy usage across a city (especially mainly suburban cities like in Australia), we're talking significant savings through these steps - they're the low-hanging fruit that it's crazy not to get on with. Tanks compared to desalination, for example, are so sensible and yet there's a push from politicians to huge wasteful desal. We've got our per capita mains consumption down to under 100l a day, and a few more changes to our home system will take us to using no more than 10l/pp/pd. This across a city the size of Melbourne can save at least 200gigalitres per annum, which would save building the 788GWh per annum desal plant planned for Melbourne is expected to use. Melbourne's power stations burn lignite... so you'll see the sorts of real consumption savings that can be achieved easily here with ease. There's no one-size-fits-all solution of course, but with some leadership we can save a lot of waste which is just as important as transitioning to new forms of energy production. > >> How we produce that energy needs to change too, but the levels of wastage in >> the US and Australia are verging on criminal. Cutting out waste isn't >> preaching a "need to suffer". >> >> What scientists are saying is that if we carry on with "business as usual" >> then a lot of people will suffer. > > If we don't solve the energy problem as many as 6 out of 7 people will > *die* in famines and resource wars. Please, show your working. I don't disbelieve you but if you can point to work on this I will read, ponder and digest. As always. Leaving for work now - will look in this evening to see where this goes... Charlie. _______________________________________________ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
