On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Charlie Bell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 18/02/2010, at 11:29 AM, Keith Henson wrote: snip >>> 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? What it would be used for wasn't part of the question. But how do you propose to power aircraft, heavy trucks and ships after we run out of fossil fuels? Also, how long will it take to replace ICE powered vehicles? snip >>> 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 788/8760 is 90 MW. 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. Not my work. Try here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3091 Keith > 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
