[DMCForum] Re: the EV1... vs Diesel
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[DMCForum] Re: the EV1... vs Diesel



--- In DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "timnagin" <timnagin@...> wrote:
> >Why do we need to stop using oil? Uhhh... because it contributes to
> >atmospheric carbon, water pollution, acid rain, (potentially) global
> >warming trends, government and corporate corruption (although, to be
> >fair, that's not the technology's fault), it's horribly "unclean" when
> >compared to "alternate" energy sources, it's non-renewable and
> >dwindling, and it's not the only thing out there anymore...
> 
> So does your breathing, eating and moose farts.  You stated exactly
what I
> did, in that anything else that comes along to replace Big Oil is
going to
> have the same thing happen - government and corporate corruption. 
Getting
> rid of oil will not solve those last two.

If you can find a way for breathing, eating and moose farting with
decreased atmospheric carbon emissions, I'm all for it.  In the
meantime, I'm interested in changing what I can, rather than focusing
on all the things I can't.  Again, this only makes the proposed
changes more necessary, not less.

> Lowering domestic petroleum prices and creating jobs wouldn't be a good
> thing?  Any new source of energy is going to have an environmental
impact
> unless we find a ZPM.

Well, those aren't bad things, but they're not particularly important
to me.  I personally don't care what nationality the person is who
works in an oil field; I'd rather it be no one.  I can afford gas for
my vehicles right now without a problem.  As scarcity goes up, so will
prices, and eventually, it will be more economical to switch to
vehicles (and power generation) that rely on other energy sources. 
Temporarily lowering the price of petroleum by drilling more
domestically is not something that interests me much.

> >Still, in order to be considered "renewable", an energy source must
> >not be depletable. That is, in the case of a physical fuel, it must
> >be produced faster than it is consumed. If the earth (or more
> >accurately, its collection of dead life-forms) is producing fossil
> >fuels faster than we consume them, this is shocking news to me. I
> >would be very interested in reading that study.
> 
> You contradicted yourself here.  If it is renewable it is renewable.
 We may
> be consuming it faster than it can create itself, but it is
renewing.  If it
> is, then it takes no action from us to do so like planting trees
which means
> our total carbon impact is less.  To plant trees we need trucks and
tools
> and people, plus all of the things associated with making those work.  I
> will have to look for the study I read and post a link.  It's been
awhile.

Maybe you misunderstood something I said here, but I don't see any
contradiction.

I'll say it again:  For the term "renewable energy source" to be
applied to fossil fuels, they must be able to regenerate at the same
speed, or faster than we consume them.  Just because fossil fuels are
being synthesized by the earth as we speak, doesn't make it renewable.
 It depends more on the speed of renewal than just the sheer fact that
it is renewing.  Think about it.

> >Furthermore, even if this were true, and fossil fuels were now
> >consider renewable, there are plenty of very compelling reasons to NOT
> >use it, as I mentioned already above. Its growing scarcity is the
> >only thing guaranteed to ween us off it, but it's the least compelling
> >reason in my mind for us to look to other energy sources.
> 
> As I mentioned before, if the scarcity is the only thing keeping us from
> implementing other sources then we should use it up as fast as
possible to
> force a change.  As long as it is cheaper to use oil we will
continue to do
> so.  It's very basic economics.

Its scarcity is the only thing guaranteed to ween us off it.  It has
nothing to do with the reasons we aren't using other energy sources
more extensively.  I don't understand this link at all.

I don't doubt that we will be using fossil fuels for a long time to
come, and of course, economics will drive us wherever we go.  The
problem is that there is a cost associated with the widespread
adoption of most alternate energy sources, and it just doesn't make
economic sense to wait until oil is too expensive (aren't we there
yet?) or until it's all used up to start thinking about these other
technologies.

Regards,
Jon Heese



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DMCForum/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DMCForum/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:DMCForum-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    mailto:DMCForum-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    DMCForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


Home Back to the Home of PROJECT VIXEN


Copyright 2006 ProjectVixen.com.  All rights reserved.

Opinions expressed in posts reflect the views of their respective authors.
DMCForum Mailing List Archive  DMCNews Mailing List Archive  DMC-UK Mailing List Archive