re. energy issues, you may want to check out www.blacklightpower.com > From: "embarkadero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 04:59:07 -0700 > To: "crashlist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [CrashList] Re: Why 'alternatives' are no alternative > > > From: Shane Mage > >> The following, from the 16/9 Science News, is only one of many refutations >> of the manic doomsday pessimism of Mr. Jones: > > This is no refutation at all, being yet another Pollyanna dream state in the > scientism of denial. The evidence is all around you, and such pejoratives as > "manic doomsday pessimism" only serve to demonstrate that you haven't > investigated the issue seriously, but have only searched for some > superficial evidence to support your wishful thinking. > > Here are a couple of points for you to consider before rejecting the crash: > > 1) Start with Weiss's apt observation: "Because processes that use sunlight > to extract hydrogen remain costly and inefficient, fossil fuels still supply > the hydrogen in most fuel cells." > > Now relinquish your denial long enough to actually calculate the process > that would replace "costly and inefficient, fossil fuels " with Stuart Licht > 's process. How much energy is required to produce enough of those fuel > cell systems to replace fossil fuel? Where does THAT energy come from? Where > does that energy come from in competiton with fossil fuel demand for everday > uses? Now ...calculate the number of Licht-based systems required to > totally replace the demand currently filled by fossil fuels. Then ... add > the additional demand projected by the time your Licht systems are in place. > (You must have all systems in the world converted by 2025.) Don't fudge, > please, and don't invoke the deus ex machina of "science will save us ... > somehow". Just do the actual real-time calculations of your projected > changeover. Really do the calculations, be honest. > > Use your own research and sources, that way you can avoid suspicion that > Mark's or mine are skewed toward chicken little. > > Then see if your think Mark's statement is manic ... or unduly pessimistic. > > 2) Explain what the small percentage of fossil fuels that are currently > devoted to petrochemical fertilizers will be replaced with. Calculate the > effect that withdrawing petrochemical fertilizer from word agriculture will > have upon population. Don't just guess, please. Be honest and seriously > examine the issue. Again ... research your own sources. > > Tom > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist > _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
