rhmellon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First, I keep hearing this or that alternative > energy source won't work, > because it can't provide enough energy to replace > fossil fuel.
I wasn't talking about ONE source. At present there is no combination of sources that can be brought on line quickly enough to avoid serious difficulties as oil production goes flat. In the future, we should be able to develop and improve various sources, but these will only "save" us if we get serious about energy reduction and, ultimately, population. > Second, we should be thinking about true energy > independence, which is every free standing house > and building in the country should have a goal of > independence from the energy grid I'll second that. But, as with all these discussions, somebody needs to crunch the numbers on what exactly is possible. What is the EROEI (the most important question)? What would it cost to replace existing sources at current power levels? How much time, space, and capital would be needed? > Third, pardon my ignorance, but what about fission? Did you mean "fusion"? Because you referred to fission in the previous paragraph when you seemed to vote against "nuclear power plants". Joe Gathman still in Ukraine ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
