With the considerable waste in the energy used for tertiary and residential buildings, it is no doubt that well over 50% can be saved by energy efficiency. One example is hot tap water, were 80% could be produced by thermal solar, by a both modest and profitable investment. A 50% savings target is easy achievable over 20 years in the construction sector. It has already been proven in the Nordic European countries, where the buildings on average use 1/3 of corresponding buildings in US and 1/4 compared with Canada, without any compromises on quality and comfort.
By applying more efficient engine sizing and fuel technology, a 50% saving can be done in the transportation sector. Only by going from a gasoline engine to a diesel engine, is a 30% saving. The feasibility of a better than 50% fuel saving in 20 years, is already proven by Europe's preference for diesel powered cars and the fuel economy for the new models of the European cars. If this philosophies are implemented world wide, a better than 50% savings would be the result. To implement biofuel compatibility is no problems, since all cars sold in Europe since 1996 must be biofuel compatible and many in US already are compatible. This means that it is no technical problems to solve on the vehicle side. In a 20 years period, almost the whole vehicle stock is renewed, except for collectors items.
To improve the energy efficiency with 50% in 20 years is not only reasonable, there are even some additional margins.
Hakan At 11:15 PM 11/24/2004, you wrote:
I'd say that considering biofuels as a substitute for fossil fuels in our current parrent of economy/society, Monbiot is right. However, biofuels from waste material and small crop diversions, as a means of keeping mechanically powered farming and a frugal local economy functioning in a time of fossil fuel supply shortages and dislocations which is fast approaching, has a crucial role to play in our overall energy supply. It may not be possible to continue mechanically powered farming in the long term, but we will need to keep it going for some time; we can't switch to animal power and gardening methods overnight. Biofuel production and use will be developed by those who want to do it for their own purposes, and I don't think it is very important whether those uses are viable (e.g. McDonald's parasites) over the long term. The important thing is that the technology gets developed and spreads. As long as we have metals and reasonably accurate machining (and it may be possible to replace a lot of metal with ceramics), I expect that biofuel powered engines will have a place. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Myles Arnott wrote: > Hi everyone, > I'm pretty new to this group, and have been following > most of what has been posited and discussed with much > interest. However, I came across this article today > and was made to feel a little uneasy. > > I believe there is a lot of good (both environmental > and humanitarian) to be achieved throught the use (and > governmental support) of this sort of renewable > energy, and call upon those better informed than > myself to put my mind at ease. > > Are we missing the bigger picture? > > Yours, > > Myles. > > > > > "Fuel for nought" > > The adoption of biofuels would be a humanitarian and > environmental disaster > > George Monbiot > Tuesday November 23, 2004 > The Guardian [snip]
_______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
