On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Tom Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> The substitution of fuel for labor is cost effective only to the extent > that fuel is cheaper than labor. Currently, the relative cheapness of fuel > results from the shifting of the social and environmental costs of > extracting and burning the shit. Sachs and Kotilikoff discuss the machines > as if they run on some mysterious unknown substance. Clue: 85% fossil fuels > at present. Among the words that do not appear in their paper: energy, > climate, emissions. > What about the theoretical possibility that fossil fuels are replaced by wind and/or solar power? I am well aware of the many technical difficulties with alternative energy sources, but is there any reason to think that these difficulties are somehow fundamental and unsolvable, rather than merely being a limitation of our current state of knowledge? -raghu.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
