| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"habshi" |
| Date: |
05 Sep 2005 12:21:01 PM |
| Object: |
Energy substitution |
It might make sense to substitue even when the energy payback is negative eg solar roof
panels or solar water heating . The reason is that if workers have to travel every year to bring the
oil to the doorstop , then you have to count the energy needed to feed that worker etc. and that can
be horrendous.
Why not have flat roofs ? There is hardly any snow nowadays and even heavy monsoons dont
harm flat roofs never mind the British drizzle . Flat roofs will also give a lot of extra living
space.
What about led lights replacing street lamps ? now that we have the blue led to give natural
light ?
excerpt guardian
Others are less sanguine. Writing in the August edition of Nature, Kerry Emanuel of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, concluded that the power of hurricanes had increased since
the mid-1970s. He said this was "highly correlated with tropical sea surface temperature, reflecting
well-documented climate signals ... my results suggest that future [global] warming may lead to an
upward trend in tropical cyclone destructive potential and, taking into account an increasing
coastal population, a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the 21st century."
This prompts two final questions. If we can expect ever-more violent weather as a result of climate
change, how much is mankind to blame? And if mankind is to blame, what are we going to do about it?
It could be the case, as some argue, that rising temperatures cannot be blamed on increasing carbon
emissions. Scientists overwhelmingly, though not exclusively, reject this view. Their take on the
data is that it proves beyond reasonable doubt that global warming is a reality and that it is
caused by the activities of man. Some of those most concerned about climate change say the world is
perilously close to a tipping point, after which the damage will be irreversible. Dismissing violent
extremes of weather as inconsequential, in other words, is rather like an individual who shrugs off
a series of violent headaches and refuses to go to the doctor.
My guess is that the majority view of scientists is now widely accepted. On a visit to the US this
summer, it was notable how many times the phrases "global warming" and "climate change" came up
unprompted in conversation. Hurricane Katrina will add to the concerns, and there is now perhaps the
best chance in many years of persuading Washington that global warming is a reality and needs to be
tackled with urgency. Last week was an opportune moment for the launch of Stop Climate Chaos by a
coalition of environmental and development groups.
Sharing
But let's not get carried away. It is one thing to accept that global warming is a reality and needs
to be tackled; it is quite another to agree to the practical steps that would be necessary to bring
about change. The Stop Climate Chaos proposals are admirable in many ways, but disappointingly make
no mention of the best method that has been worked out to deal with climate change in an equitable,
global fashion: the contraction and convergence process aimed at shrinking and fairly sharing out
greenhouse emissions.
However, this is not just a question of what policymakers decide. If the argument is that global
warming threatens the future of the planet, then we may need to question the entire basis of the
modern industrial economy. At one level this is a conceptual process: should growth be the prime
objective of economic policy? Do the arguments in favour of free trade stack up once environmental
costs are taken into account? Is globalisation the irresistible force of progress meeting the
immovable object of the environment? How these policy debates are resolved will have practical
implications. If our way of doing things is a dead end, it would mean more limited choice when we
shop. It would mean cut-price flights would be a thing of the past. There would have to be a
dramatic change in lifestyles. Some economists believe the price would not be worth paying, and that
the best option is to allow capitalism to respond as it has to other challenges, so the market
throws up technological solutions to the problem, from solar power to hybrid cars.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Energy substitution |
05 Sep 2005 01:03:05 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics habshi <habshi@anony.net> wrote:
It might make sense to substitue even when the energy payback is negative eg solar roof
panels or solar water heating . The reason is that if workers have to travel every year to bring the
oil to the doorstop , then you have to count the energy needed to feed that worker etc. and that can
be horrendous.
The vast majority of houses in the US are heated by what comes through a
pipe; it isn't "delivered".
So, if you could eliminate heating oil delivery in the few places it exists,
you could just let the workers starve?
Why not have flat roofs ? There is hardly any snow nowadays and even heavy monsoons dont
harm flat roofs never mind the British drizzle . Flat roofs will also give a lot of extra living
space.
Nope, there isn't much snow in the summer; wait for winter.
If my roof were flat (it is tilted so rain runs off), the attic could be
made into a room that would have a 4 foot ceiling.
What about led lights replacing street lamps ? now that we have the blue led to give natural
light ?
Color is basically irrelevent; the important parameter is intensity.
There are no LEDs with the intensity of vapor lights.
You are an imbecile.
<snip reposted babble>
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Energy substitution |
05 Sep 2005 01:09:13 PM |
|
|
"You are an imbecile."
Must you people call names?
sci.physics would be a decent place for discussions if it weren't for
that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Energy substitution |
05 Sep 2005 01:26:26 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics wrote:
"You are an imbecile."
Must you people call names?
sci.physics would be a decent place for discussions if it weren't for
that.
Yeah, right.
What are you going to discuss with spaceman, kenseto, henri, Sir_Tucaud,
maleki, habshi, macromitch, shead, sarfatti, fbonsignore, hanson,
a_plutonium, mdoctorow, frazir and the rest of their spewing ilk?
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
