mwm@ea.UUCP (08/17/84)
#R:tekecs:-397200:ea:3400021:000:1622 ea!mwm Aug 17 13:02:00 1984 > /***** ea:net.followup / tekecs!jeffw / 9:38 am Aug 13, 1984 */ > >> Well, not really. The "best" new power "source" is: > > >> C O N S E R V A T I O N. > > > Yes, but it only works in the *very* short term. My guess would be > > that it won't even work long enough to bring a new power technology > > on line. > > Your guess, eh? Would that everyone on the net were as candid as you. Thank you. > Conservation has worked well enough already to play hob with the Bonneville > power Administration's demand forecasts (nw US) and eliminate (for many > years) the need for the WppSS nuclear plants - a large factor in the > current brouhaha over the plants. We seem to be suffering from a problem of different time scales. Bringing a new power technology on line is a 30+ year proposition. I suspect that conservation won't buy you *anything* beyond 300-400 years. Unless you're willing to start cutting back on things, like the population. > Whatever power sources we use, it makes sense to conserve (ie, not waste) > to the best of our ability, both for (inextricably related) economic and > ecological reasons. > > Jeff Winslow Of course. However, we shouldn't get into the habit of depriving ourselves in the name of conservation. As we replace things, or as it begins to make economic sense, we should build more energy-efficient things. The thing to avoid is the false economy of spending more energy installing conservation equipment/materials than we save with them over their expected life span. As in all things, some thought, and maybe a little calculation, before you act are in order. <mike
cmm@pixadv.UUCP (cmm) (08/23/84)
<bye bye line> > Conservation has worked well enough already to play hob with the Bonneville > power Administration's demand forecasts (nw US) and eliminate (for many > years) the need for the WppSS nuclear plants - a large factor in the > current brouhaha over the plants. > Jeff Winslow | We seem to be suffering from a problem of different time scales. Bringing a | new power technology on line is a 30+ year proposition. I suspect that | conservation won't buy you *anything* beyond 300-400 years. Unless you're | willing to start cutting back on things, like the population. | <mike 300 to 400 years from a single power source (conservation) is *far* longer than we have been served by oil (inthe absence of conservation). Three centuries is a perfectly acceptable lifespan for conservation to provide us with needed energy, and *should* provide time to develop alternatives. BTW, is there a better newsgroup to maintain this discussion? Net.followup strikes me as being too unspecific (how about net.sci or net.physics?). -- ____________________________________________________________________________ cmm (carl m mikkelsen) | (617)657-8720x2310 Pixel Computer Incorporated | 260 Fordham Road | {allegra|ihnp4|cbosgd|ima|genrad|amd|harvard}\ Wilmington, Ma. 01887 | !wjh12!pixel!pixadv!cmm