Re: Worrying about the long term (was Global Warming (NUCLEAR))

["William J. Larson" <bill_larson@CSI.COM>]

==>It is just not very meaningful to compare energy efficiencies
==>between different countries. Take Switzerland for example.
OK, let's. Gasoline is $4/gallon here. That COULD :-) be done in the US.
Virtually every inhabited spot in Switzerland can be efficiently (here I
mean efficiently in the traveler's time spent) reached by public transport.
That could not be done in the US, but a vast improvement IS possible. I
personally commute 100 km each way, every day by train & bus. To say that
you cannot learn from other country's experiences & efforts is throwing away
very useful data.

==>You can't fairly compare the energy efficiency of Japan (at 335
==>people/km^2) and the U.S. at 30 people km^2.
True, but the available sayings are in the much denser megalopolises on the
coasts.

==>I guess you can try to change the culture/lifestyle of everywhere
==>to something that is very energy efficient, but I don't think you
==>will ever be successful doing so.
I do not think that changing the culture/lifestyle is at all easy, but
recycling was a culture/lifestyle change in the 70's. It happened. I do not
imagine (as apparently do some of the environmental organizations that I
belong to) that conservation and windmills will solve our problem. But you
miss two points.
1) Incrementalism works. Don't disparage 10% effects. Look at any of the
dozens of spectacularly effective high tech toys littering our houses.
Typically one big breakthrough & then a hundred 10% improvements ground out
by corps of engineers brought them to their present state. 1.1^100 = 13,780
:-)
2) The free enterprise system will save our butts. As long as the price of
energy reflects its costs [I know that $4/gallon gasoline violates this
rule, but it violates it in the "right" direction :-) ] over time consumers
will choose conservation and suppliers will find new sources. Environmental
concerns can be put into the pricing mechanism. Note that this is not
automatic. Command economies, like the Soviet Union's did not let the price
of energy reflect its costs. In lots of third world countries gasoline is
currently heavily subsidized. When their governments try sensible reforms,
there are massive riots. We have to avoid these errors.


Cheers,
Bill Larson
Geneva, Switzerland

----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Tarara <rbtarara@SPRYNET.COM>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: 2001 March 31 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: Worrying about the long term (was Global Warming (NUCLEAR))


> It is just not very meaningful to compare energy efficiencies between
> different countries.  Take Switzerland for example.  It looks VERY energy
> efficient.  However, if you look closely, you will see that a good portion
> of the Swiss economy is based on the energy used in Germany, Italy, and
> France.  You can't fairly compare the energy efficiency of Japan (at 335
> people/km^2) and the U.S. at 30 people km^2.  The transportation-energy
> demands of the U.S. are VERY much higher as are lots of other factors due
to
> housing patterns, housing size, etc.  I guess you can try to change the
> culture/lifestyle of everywhere to something that is very energy
efficient,
> but I don't think you will ever be successful doing so.
>
> All this means that you must concentrate on how to use conservation and
> efficiency WITHIN the framework of the local culture/economy.  If you do
> that, then a 25% reduction in energy use is very hard to achieve.
>
> Rick
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William J. Larson" <bill_larson@CSI.COM>
> To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 2:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Worrying about the long term (was Global Warming (NUCLEAR))
>
>
> > Rick,
> >
> > > 2)  I set a goal of a 25% reduction in energy use for the Efficiency
and
> > > Conservation groups (combined).  Year after year these groups FAIL to
> > > achieve this goal once they work the numbers.
> >
> > I have the impression that Western Europe (with a population and
standard
> of
> > living approximately equal to the US) is using a lot less of the world's
> > petroleum than the US. Here in Europe we have huge gasoline taxes. I
> assumed
> > this (presumed) lower level of usage is due to our greater efficiencies.
> In
> > which ways am I wrong?
> >
> > For what it's worth [< < 0.002¢], the zero health effects of Three Mile
> > Island made me very PRO nuclear. The (to my mind) surprisingly low
health
> > effects of Chernobyl made me very, very PRO nuclear. [Based on the then
> > common thinking I initially expected at least tens of thousands to die
> > within days.]
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Bill Larson
> > Geneva, Switzerland
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Rick Tarara <rbtarara@SPRYNET.COM>
> > To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
> > Sent: 2001 March 31 8:53 PM
> > Subject: Re: Worrying about the long term (was Global Warming (NUCLEAR))