--- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> 
> --- 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. )



I think off the grid is inherently better because the grid will 
become more and more unnecessary, but you are right about the car. 
It is the worst, and needs attention although todays new cars have a 
lot less emmissions that the older ones. Eventually an oil driven 
car will have zero emmissions. SUV 's and trucks are a different 
story.

The worst culprit though is probably big industry in which we all 
partake, but I don't beleive it needs to be anything like as big or 
polluting as it is. I think it is greed that fuels big industry. And 
I don't think it benefits people's state of well being much.

Things seem to be changing.





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/
 



Reply via email to