Posted by G. R. L. Cowan on December 22, 2005, 8:54 pm
Ah, so if fossil fuels' friends in government
were unable to maintain those fuels' dominance,
the public money those fuels now sop up,
the exchequer would be stuck with.
Some of it might end up in said friends' paycheques,
or their budgets for executive assistants,
perhaps of the beautiful young opposite-sex variety.
Who wants *that*.
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet
Posted by websurf1 on December 23, 2005, 9:41 pm
G. R. L. Cowan wrote:
In discussions of such things as the politics and economics of energy,
I usually make the assumption that paid or subsidized trips to unnamed
boudiours (sp?) are not part of the equations. They are very hard to
No doubt they are sometimes very real, but it is still difficult for
decent folks like me to anticipate...
I assume though that your post is somewhat tongue-in-cheek? (Please
don't go anywhere with that one....)
Posted by Jeff Thies on December 20, 2005, 5:12 am
I'm in the states and here that is simply not true. Most electricity
here is either natural gas or coal fired. Jimmy Carter initiated the
switch off oil fired.
I'm with you on the heat.
It's coming. Been to a BP station with the curved roof over the pumps.
Those are PV cells up there and they supply the bulk of electricity used.
For most of us though, PV is not practical and won't be for quite a
while, solar heat is... The energy yield on thermal is soooo much higher.
Posted by philkryder on December 20, 2005, 7:23 am
Which of the follow 5 reduce carbon dioxide most effectively:
1) A typical dollar spent or improving energy efficiency.
2) A typical dollar spent on Wind energy.
3) A typical dollar spent on solar pv.
4) A typical dollar spent on solar heat.
5) Your favorite alternative.
Posted by Derek Broughton on December 20, 2005, 1:13 pm
In order, probably 1,4,2,5, but since I'm already doing all of them, I'll
still root for cheaper PV.