That doesn't make any sense. By that reasoning, anyone complaining about extremely high medical costs should use less (i.e., suffer needlessly). Perhaps they should just muddle through or ultimately chuck it and die. At least then they wouldn't incur those exorbitant medical fees.
By the same token, there is no reason anyone should pay exorbitant costs for electricity...NO REASON WHATSOEVER, especially when certain electrical generation technologies are available which afford humanity safe, reliable, and inexpensive energy. The underpinning of modern society is electricity, but the mark of a technologically-advanced society is *nuclear electrical power generation*. Without electricity, humanity is thrown back to an agrarian existence of the early 19th century in terms of technological achievement, and would be forced to endure all the needless suffering that comes with it. For without electricity, much of what we take for granted is lost: - Modern textiles - Modern agriculture - Heavy Construction - Pharmaceuticals - Space flight - Petro-Chemical Processing - Electronics - Convenient, readily-available, on-demand transportation (private or public) - Information systems, etc. Electricity is the underpinning of all these and many more areas of so-called "modern" society. It is the "enabling technology" upon which everything else depends. It is the ONLY form of energy (presently known) that can be generated, controlled, stored, distributed, and transmitted (in MW) hundreds, if not thousands, of kilometers...*IN AN INSTANT*. Without electricity, we have no hope of preserving human life on the scale we now witness and take part in. We are literally living the dreams of past generations, and in some respects, we have surpassed those dreams to partake of things that were completely unimaginable to people of past generations. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Wind and Solar - they’re expensive. They’re unreliable. And most importantly, their power output is pathetically low. Barring a breakthrough in fusion, there is no better source for electrical generation than nuclear (fission). Nuclear (fission) today can't be beat in terms of cost, reliability, and power density (kW per square meter, except for coal-fire generation as it relates to power density only). - Natural Gas – $0.0162/kWh ($4.75/MMBtu avg., $3.08/MMBtu to $6.42/MMBtu, EIA, 6/25/09) - Nuclear – $0.02/kWh - Coal – $0.05/kWh - Wind (subsidized) – $0.07/kWh - *U.S. Residential Electricity Costs* – $0.10 to $0.12/kWh (depending upon utility, region of country, and seasonal variations) - Wind (unsubsidized) – $0.12/kWh - Solar (unsubsidized) – $0.22/kWh *Notes*: 1 W = 1 J/s 1 kW = 1000 J/s 1 kWh = 1000 J/s x 3600 s = 3.6 MJ ≈ 3412 BTU Power density in terms of foot print (kW per square meter) for Natural Gas, Coal, and Nuclear generation are between 4 kW and 11 kW per square meter, where it is only 0.3 kW and 0.6 kW per square meter for Solar and Wind, respectively. Monthly, Single-Family Residence, Energy Consumption ≈ 550 kWh to 1200 kWh (depending upon demand and seasonal variations) In short, Solar and Wind are a *“fool’s errand”* for anything *except niche applications*. Let's not prostrate ourselves before the altar of political correctness for the sake of Solar and Wind to the neglect of much more safe, dependable, and inexpensive technologies like Nuclear. On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Jason D Darfus <[email protected]>wrote: > > My response to anyone complaining about high energy prices is always the > same: use less. >
