> The other thing is that probably the cleanest "source" is more efficient > use of energy. The USA uses more than double the energy per capita than > similarly industrialized countries with a similar level of comfort > elsewhere (Japan, UK, Germany, France -- data from the USA DOE > http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee1c.xls). Seems to me > that there is a definite room for improvement.
I agree, to a certain extent. But, even if you had lossless transmission lines and 100% efficient appliances and HVAC, you still must have energy from somewhere. Comfort is subjective too, isn't it? Many people in the US measure their comfort by how big their house is, how big their SUV is, what kind of car they drive, etc. Even furniture styles are subject to "bigthink". We have a furniture store in Tallahassee that sells Scandinavian style furniture. Some of the pieces are beautiful, but most of them seem so small. One particular bedroom suite I saw looked like it was for a child's bedroom. Most Americans would never consider something that small to be comfortable. When Americans are buying a house, they always try to buy the biggest house they can possibly afford. Energy usage is almost never on the list of criteria for an American home buyer. The builders are doing well if they can nail two sticks together at right angles and it stands up straight. Builders are rarely capable of comprehending energy issues other than what the building codes tell them must be done. My builder thought I was a crackpot genius from outer space for the stuff that I did to improve the energy efficiency of my house (see below). Personally, I am thrifty with my energy usage and try to conserve where practical. I don't drive an SUV. I do have a huge old Cadillac, but I only drive it in the spring and fall when it's top-down weather. The rest of the time I drive an Eclipse that gets about 26 mpg. I was at a homeowner's association meeting last night, and one of my neighbors who lives across the street was complaining about her utility bill being $250 last month. I told her mine was $150, and she gasped with shock and said "How do you do that?" Another neighbor said she wanted to be comfortable and would not turn the thermostat down (in winter) or up (in summer) just to save money. Then I explained that I did not have to sacrifice my comfort, in fact I set my thermostat at whatever I want (72-73F in winter, 74-75F in summer). It's just that when I had my house built, I spec'ed extra insulation in the attic, and an extra high efficiency (SEER 14) heat pump (the builder's standard unit is SEER 11). I also had indirect fluorescent lighting installed in the rooms. And I use fluorescent screw base bulbs in my garage sconsce lights, and have them on a timer. The SEER 14 heat pump cost me an extra $1000, but I made it back in energy savings in the first 18 months. I bought a new washer and dryer. The washer is a front loading type, which is more energy efficient. The big gains come from the fact that a front loading washer spins faster, centrifuging more water out of the clothes than a top loader does. That means it takes much less time to dry the clothes in the dryer. Drying energy cost is where you will save the most, not water savings. My home file/print server (which is always on) is a low-power PC I built from a Via mini-itx motherboard. The PC uses only 35W. Oh yeah, they asked me how I know to do all this stuff, and I explained that I am an electrical engineer. I *did not* tell them they had inadequate science education ;-) Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerhard Fiedler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Open Topic Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 8:22 AM Subject: Re: [OT] ongoing environmental thread *was* lead free > > the 'Industrial Physicist' Magazine (a good rag!) > > covers these topics routinely > > > > the consensus (as i read it) of their writers is that fission power > > offers the best set of trade offs currently, esp. if breeders are > > considered since the amount of waste is much lower from breeders > > Not to say that I /know/ more than those guys, but when talking of > trade-offs, you need to take benefits and damages, quantify them and weigh > them with factors, right? > > First, there is a problem with /objectively/ quantifying many of the issues > involved. Second, there is a problem with coming up with /objective/ > relative weights. Both calculations are highly subjective, and depend a lot > on the prerogatives you use. Third, they usually don't use traditional risk > analysis. When you apply that (risk is the sum of probability times damage > for every possible incident), most nuclear technologies don't get a good > rating. > > The other thing is that probably the cleanest "source" is more efficient > use of energy. The USA uses more than double the energy per capita than > similarly industrialized countries with a similar level of comfort > elsewhere (Japan, UK, Germany, France -- data from the USA DOE > http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee1c.xls). Seems to me > that there is a definite room for improvement. > > Gerhard > > ____________________________________________________________ > You are subscribed to the OT discussion forum > > To Post messages: > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Unsubscribe and Other Options: > http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/ot_techservinc.com > > Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > ____________________________________________________________ You are subscribed to the OT discussion forum To Post messages: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe and Other Options: http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/ot_techservinc.com Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
