Subject: Re: eer
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Organization: The Armory
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test69 (20 September 1998)
From: email@example.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Date: 26 Oct 2002 01:34:33 GMT
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
John Larkin wrote:
>On 23 Oct 2002 23:04:29 GMT, email@example.com (Richard
>Steven Walz) wrote:
>>The mere PRESENCE of coal means NOTHING!
>The important thing about coal is where it is: namely China. China has
>little oil or gas and over a billion people who want to live in an
>industrial society and be middle-class, air-conditioned energy
>consumers like us. They have *lots* of coal. And when they eventually
>have 1.8 or whatever cars per household like we do, they'll suck up
>the world's oil supply too.
They need to both be helped by the rest of us and encouraged by incentives
or outright threats, to make homes that are hyperinsulated, and use ground
heatsinking for cooling and passive solar for heating, so they won't need
to even use gross abusers of fossil fuels that way. They need to be
encouraged also to use high-quality durable mass transit, like bullet
trains and to power those using solar and wind, and to recycle all
substances using the ultimate in modern non-polluting methods.
For that matter we need to be coerced to do that TOO! Though since they
will need to be upgraded first to have anything at ALL, our upgrade may
have to wait, at greater and greater costs to us!
>I think the only practical outcome is more nukes. You can't ask the
>people of China, India, South America, and Africa to remain primitive
>for our benefit, and there's not enough fossil fuel (or, as you point
>out, air to burn it) to let them catch up.
They don't need them, they now live a more primitive life, and want to
upgrade, thus they are the most eligible to be leap-frogged over us and
to have installed all NEW housing and domestic engines. It may actually
be true that WE will need nukes a while longer to make it till we can
be upgraded, but that's because ours already exist and we can't afford
to shut them down yet. If we didn't have to help to "catch-up" the third
world, we could easily do without nukes ourselves as we could then
progressively convert to all solar/wind/hydro/geo/biomass/tidal/thermocline
as our older stuff goes bad or offline. If we begin in a reasonable time,
and that means people like you WAKE UP, then we won't need nukes for
-Steve Walz firstname.lastname@example.org ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public