> From: Lee Hart <leeah...@earthlink.net> > It's like the "ICE" solution wins. When you treat oil supplies as > "limitless", then extremely inefficient ICEs are the popular choice, > because it's cheaper.
Thanks for that, Lee. I don't have numbers for a full-on "EMERGY" analysis of the two, and have no desire to get into a religious argument, but I think it's a pretty safe bet that the embedded energy of the PV system loses against passive solar. And then there's the whole complexity argument: boxes full of power electronics and microprocessors, rotating components, rare-earth materials, etc., versus the sheer simplicity of a drain-back system that only uses copper, aluminum, and some tubing. The entire "dollars and cents" argument doesn't make any sense in a world that is awash in fracked oil, produced at a loss, in our zeal to keep civilization humming along. But I can tell you which system I'd rather have if civilization crashes, and it won't be the one powered by a stream of diesel-powered UPS trucks, delivering replacement parts! I'm reminded of the Panarchy model, which posits that complexity is powered by energy. If you think energy is going into decline, you should be seeking simpler solutions, not more complex ones. Jan _______________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
