moroney@jon.DEC (08/16/84)
> Re: The best new energy source is CONSERVATION. > Wrong. Absolutely, 100% wrong. Conservation does not produce a single > erg of energy. It can help gain a little time, but that is it. Most of > the people who promote conservation as The Solution To All Our Problems > are actually proposing leaving the problem of new energy sources to future > generations, to borrow one of the phrases they're so fond of. > When you talk Conservation Alone, you are talking about zero economic > growth. This denys upward mobility to those people in the lower economic > groups. Their only hope of advancement is the economic growth that the > "soft energy" people disdain. And ultimately, the fossil fuels will be > gone anyway. What then, if we've dismantled our future to placate the > fears of the technophobes? This person seems to have conservation somehow confused with economic depressions. Energy conservation simply means using less energy to do the same useful work as was used before conservation. For example, insulating a house. Please explain how that puts anyone out of work (except the oil deliveryman :-)) It actually CREATES jobs, first by producing work to implement conservation, (like the people who make and install the insulation) and then by making products less expensive (what do you think factories, etc do with high energy bills? They raise their prices!) Also in the case of our house, since you are now spending less on oil, maybe you can use that money to buy a new car! (Perhaps replacing a gas guzzler, helping even more!) As far as conservation not producing any energy at all, in reality that is true, but actually it is JUST AS GOOD AS finding an additional energy source (remember? A penny saved is a penny earned). Actually, it is BETTER, since you don't get any pollution from the oil you no longer have to burn to provide additional energy for the waste, no acid rain or radioactivity from the coal you no longer burn, no hazards (real or imaginary) from all the nuclear power plants that haven't been ordered to be built in the last several years (Did you think there are no new orders for nukes because of public pressure or the cost/problems with them? WRONG! It is because of CONSERVATION the growth in the use in power has fallen far below previous estimates) Granted, conservation doesn't PRODUCE any energy, it just stretches what we have, so we must still find alternate energy sources but it is better than using up our limited resources just to provide for waste. Michael Moroney ..!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-jon!moroney
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (08/19/84)
(Did you think there are no new orders for nukes because
of public pressure or the cost/problems with them? WRONG! It is because
of CONSERVATION the growth in the use in power has fallen far below
previous estimates)
*********************
No, it's because of economic recession, mostly. I have seen a recent
estimate that the growth in demand is now about 8% per annum, as opposed
to the projections of 3% before the recession hit. Perhaps the economy
will get back to the original 3% line and settle back, but perhaps not.
Either way, according to what I read, installed supply will be insufficient
to meet demand within the next decade.
Other than that, I agree with everything you said about conservation.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt