--- In [email protected], off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> I think that it is inevitable that everyone will have to live off
> the grid with some minimal use of machines, but limited usage of
> machines and very low-impact environmentally. Otherwise Earth will
> throw us off.
> I am aiming to live off the grid quite soon. But I will keep my car,
> which is a drug to us. Hopefully cars will be non-polluting and non
> oil based one day.
>
> You are ahead of the curve.
Why is off the grid inherently better?
Its not the grid thats bad, its what is typically at generation source
of the grid which is problematic. The grid enables large economies of
scale, which are viable for most power generation -- including more
environmental friendly ones such as wind, geo-thermal, thermal solar,
fuel cells (to some degree) -- and perhaps PV solar. (Even these
technologies have an environmental impact, but its far less than say a
coal plant -- even though coal is much cleaner today than 20 years ago
-- via scrubbers, etc.) And in some regions, such as california --
and most new generation everywhere, natural gas is the generation fuel
-- not benign, but pretty darn clean. The grid enables use of such.
The grid has some downside in terms of being subject to terrorist
disruption -- but on the other hand it enables much greater
cost-effective generation reliability than stand alone systems in that
a 15% reserve margin can cover most production outages -- while an end
user generation system requires 100%.
End-use energy efficiency (more btus or lumens per watt) is the most
environmentally benign eneregy source. I hope you are using compact
fluorecents everywhere in your home and office, and not incandesent
lights. And though great strides have been made in energy efficiency
since the 70s, with new technology and yet to be saturated market
potential for existing technologies, efficiency rates could
essentially double.
And of course there is simply use less end use btus and lumens --
proper design can yeild similar comfort levels with lower btus and lumens.
And typically your car is far more polluting, than your electric
consumption. Work on lowering your car (and fossil substitutes)
consumption more than your grid consumption. Pricing gasoline, via
intelligent tax design (no Mark that is not an oxymoron) at its true
social cost -- that is including all its externalities, would do much
to induce higher energy efficiency (higher MPG and better substitutes)
in vehicles.
But we are on the verge of a shift I think. This years hybrids
actually give better power performance than non-hybrid counter-models.
Thus hybrids will begin to be chosen for that -- in addition to
efficiency.
But taxing gas at its actual total cost -- via perhaps a $2-3/gal tax
and using the proceeds to rapidly induce change in market structure
and transition, via subsidiies, hybrids, hydrogen fuel cells and PV
solar would dramatically reduce fossil consumption,
while not dramatically disrupting consumers' total cost for
transportation (higher priced gas x more miles per gallon = equivalent
costs)
And such a policy would substantially reduce revenues for many nations
that directly or indirectly support terrorism and underlying religious
fundamentalism.
(btw, fro waht its worth, to get off the grid to improve the
environment while driving big trucks is inconsistent not grounded in
reality. )
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
