Eric wrote:
>I still wonder
>if "total costs" are being accounted for. "Production" does not include
>everything. Transport, raw material gathering, disposal, installation,
>maintenance, factory construction, etc.
I assume we are talking about the total energy costs not
money. Money and value is something we define and varies.
Things like labor costs and the cost of energy all change
each day. With energy costs the most useful data would be
comparing the relative energy costs of other energy forms.
This analysis almost always shows a local harvest of energy
is the winner. No other alternative comes close. A low tech
agriculture using photosynthesis (firewood and crops) is
number one. Another competitor for first place is solar
thermal. This includes sun rooms, greenhouses, etc. When we
get to electricity the last data i saw put good wind sites at
the top along with lots of questions about wave power, biogas
fuel cells, and PV. Even though fossil fuels are cheap they
are down the list. It takes a lot of energy to extract
fossil fuels and deal with all their problems. If we want to
use electricity the candidates are:
nuclear
oil
coal
natural gas
PV
plants (wood, biogas, etc.)
earth heat
wave power
wind
hydro
animal power (actually from plants)
The use of wind, wave, hydro, and earth heat is only viable
at some sites and their use is limited. Agricultural sources
of energy is currently driven by fossil fuels and not very
attractive on a large scale. Plus we don't want to turn the
whole earth into energy crops or burn our forests. What's
left? All the stuff about hydrogen and fuel cells is talking
about efficiency, they are not energy sources. The debate at
this point splits into three groups
1. Fossil fuels forever (don't confuse me with facts)
2. Nuclear power (science can solve the problems)
3. Balanced use of solar, wind, and conservation. (cultural change)
jeff
