Posted by Randy Gross on June 6, 2005, 7:13 pm
I think I should clarify myself as far as the grid is concerned. I am
not anti-grid. A/C power is as much a part of our lives as a hand or a
foot. The problem lies in our total dependence to it and no one can
ever understand this until your area (grid) has been deprived of it for
days, weeks or months.
Something else that is frightening is the fact that this weakness in
our system can be used against us to seriously handicap our retaliation
in the event of attack. We will lose everything except manual tasks,
zapped into the 18th century in a heartbeat (I couldn't even charge my
cell phone during the Florida 4). Those with the foresight to be off
the grid under their own power won't suffer creature comforts. I'm
talking about small geographical areas as well as individual homes.
I think alternative energy promotes independence as well as security
or, at least, a fighting chance.
rg
oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
>
>
> Randy Gross wrote:
> > Following this thread, I can see that much progress is being
> > achieved in developing other less destructive resources for power
> > generation, however, I would like to see the United States make a
> > more aggressive effort to move from the back of the pack!
>
>
> It's not that these ideas are bad per se, it's just that I don't
> think most folks realize just how much energy is consumed in the US
> each day. In order to make much of a dent, these various schemes
> have to be huge. They have to consume huge amounts of land in one
> sense or another and involve huge amounts of construction and support.
> Basically it's hydroelectric dam kinda proportions and you virtually
> can't build those anymore. I don't see most of these other ideas
> having much of a shot either.
6/6/2005
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Posted by News on June 6, 2005, 8:05 pm
> Randy Gross wrote:
> > Following this thread, I can see that much progress is being achieved
> > in developing other less destructive resources for power generation,
> > however, I would like to see the United States make a more aggressive
> > effort to move from the back of the pack!
Shoot Bush?
> It's not that these ideas are bad per se, it's just that I don't
> think most folks realize just how much energy is consumed in the US
> each day.
About 25% of the world's energy in one country. No one half sane can think
that will go on forever.
> In order to make much of a dent, these various schemes
> have to be huge. They have to consume huge amounts of land in one
> sense or another and involve huge amounts of construction and support.
> Basically it's hydroelectric dam kinda proportions and you virtually
> can't build those anymore. I don't see most of these other ideas
> having much of a shot either.
Please look at what other countries are doing. There is no great cost in
all of this. The US has a very long coats line that can accommodate wind
farms in many parts. Combined Heat & Power is easy to do on a district and
individual level. High efficiency domestic appliances. High insulation
standards on buildings. Passive solar building construction. All many ways
at eating away at the problem.
It is having the drive and then setting the strategy. It is amazing what
can be achieved in 10 years.
Posted by Jesse Spencer on June 6, 2005, 10:05 pm
The US has a very long coats line that can accommodate wind
> farms in many parts. Combined Heat & Power is easy to do on a district and
> individual level. High efficiency domestic appliances. High insulation
> standards on buildings. Passive solar building construction. All many ways
> at eating away at the problem.
>
> It is having the drive and then setting the strategy. It is amazing what
> can be achieved in 10 years.
You are quite right.
Many things possible that are econemically and energy efficient.
One of many examples: Front load washing machines. The cost a lot more
right now but the long term savings make sense for a changeover there.
I got one, it uses lots less hot water, electricity, soap, and bleach.
I test weighed one load, it was 4 lbs less water than my expired
toploader. So the real saving is in dryer time which has cut in half.
When demand forces the production of more front loaders the price
difference comes down.
Our single greatest energy use by far is: waste
Posted by John P . Bengi on June 6, 2005, 10:25 pm
I doubt they take less electricity to lift the clothes and toss them
continuously. Do you have any stats on that?
> The US has a very long coats line that can accommodate wind
> > farms in many parts. Combined Heat & Power is easy to do on a district
and
> > individual level. High efficiency domestic appliances. High insulation
> > standards on buildings. Passive solar building construction. All many
ways
> > at eating away at the problem.
> >
> > It is having the drive and then setting the strategy. It is amazing
what
> > can be achieved in 10 years.
> You are quite right.
> Many things possible that are econemically and energy efficient.
> One of many examples: Front load washing machines. The cost a lot more
> right now but the long term savings make sense for a changeover there.
> I got one, it uses lots less hot water, electricity, soap, and bleach.
> I test weighed one load, it was 4 lbs less water than my expired
> toploader. So the real saving is in dryer time which has cut in half.
> When demand forces the production of more front loaders the price
> difference comes down.
> Our single greatest energy use by far is: waste
Posted by News on June 7, 2005, 5:34 am
> I doubt they take less electricity
Don't top post and you are wrong anyway - as usual.
XML site map
>
> Randy Gross wrote:
> > Following this thread, I can see that much progress is being
> > achieved in developing other less destructive resources for power
> > generation, however, I would like to see the United States make a
> > more aggressive effort to move from the back of the pack!
>
>
> It's not that these ideas are bad per se, it's just that I don't
> think most folks realize just how much energy is consumed in the US
> each day. In order to make much of a dent, these various schemes
> have to be huge. They have to consume huge amounts of land in one
> sense or another and involve huge amounts of construction and support.
> Basically it's hydroelectric dam kinda proportions and you virtually
> can't build those anymore. I don't see most of these other ideas
> having much of a shot either.