Alternative energy sources or reduce energy use?

Page 1 of 1 [ 11 posts ] 

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 Mar 2008, 1:35 pm

How many kilowatts per year per person do we really need to use up? Electricity makes lighting safer, cleaning faster, food last longer, and lowers the necessity of insulation on buildings. But for these benefits we pollute the air and water and reduce the sources of energy to use. Are there no other ways of living than wasting so much energy and as a side problem cause humans to be ignorant as to how to survive without these conveniences?

Should we look for more and different fuels to waste or look for better ways to live?



SilverProteus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,915
Location: Somewhere Over The Rainbow

18 Mar 2008, 2:17 pm

Solar energy might be a good alternative, if we had better technology to "harness" it better...


_________________
"Lightning is but a flicker of light, punctuated on all sides by darkness." - Loki


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 Mar 2008, 2:28 pm

...and if the process to make them wasn't harmful to the environment, it wouldn't be so bad. Your right though, the efficiency of solar panels isn't good enough yet.

Laser-induced hydrogen fusion may be the next main source, and their is plenty of fuel for thousands of years, but do we really need to use as much energy as we do now?

People seem to have an attitude about them that when there is plenty that they may be wasteful, but only slow down when they approach the end of their resources.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

18 Mar 2008, 3:31 pm

We should look for neither and simply tax externalities caused by fuel sources. Politicians and mass action and probably a number of experts are incompetent compared to the market.



SilverProteus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,915
Location: Somewhere Over The Rainbow

18 Mar 2008, 3:57 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
...and if the process to make them wasn't harmful to the environment, it wouldn't be so bad. Your right though, the efficiency of solar panels isn't good enough yet.


Maybe with better technology the fabrication of solar panels won't cause the enviroment as much harm? Our technology in that field is close to primitive still.

Quote:
Laser-induced hydrogen fusion may be the next main source, and their is plenty of fuel for thousands of years, but do we really need to use as much energy as we do now?


Maybe the answer is to perfect not one but many renewable energy sources?

Quote:
People seem to have an attitude about them that when there is plenty that they may be wasteful, but only slow down when they approach the end of their resources.


Very true. It's the old "value it when it's gone" thing.


_________________
"Lightning is but a flicker of light, punctuated on all sides by darkness." - Loki


velodog
Gold Supporter
Gold Supporter

User avatar

Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,374

19 Mar 2008, 3:43 am

I believe it is human nature to want more. I also believe that people will use petroleum products
as long as they are available. Petroleum provides a lot of other benefits besides fuel.
The Hydrogen for hydrogen cells is taken from Crude oil, also sulfuric acid is made from oleum and water to make a very pure grade of acid. Coke , used for heavy industrial furnaces for smelting Iron, comes from crude oil. Adipic acid, which is used in the manufacture of nylon type plastics is made using cyclohexane. If you throw in paraffin and elemental sulfur then it gets really clear that replacing oil products as a whole is a real tall order.

Anyway, to the question posed about "do we need all this energy?", well no I don't believe we do.
But getting people to give up air conditioning will be a tough sell. I was in Spain from Nov. 78 to
Sept. 81 and, living on the economy, we only heated the apt.s we lived in while we were home.
We had no air conditioning except on Base and life was pretty good. It can be done, but I'm at a
loss as to how to sell it to the public. Maybe thats Bush's policy, if he gets oil to $200 a bbl then
everyone will have to cut back to afford groceries. :D



Izaak
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 981
Location: Perth, Western Australia

19 Mar 2008, 4:46 am

What about the third alternative?

Use energy at whatever levels someone provides for us until someone actually provides proof that human energy use is providing a "dramatic and detrimental environmental catastrophe on a global scale."

In the mean time I am going to keep on using an air conditioner when the temperature hits 30degrees, a heater when the temperature drops below 10 degrees. I'll also keep driving my car, with too big an engine for its size, because I enjoy the feel of a sports car. And a companies environmental track record will continue to have no bearing upon MY purchasing decisions because it's much more important that they deliver a superior product at a competitive price that I am willing to pay.


The anti-man, is the anti-life.



monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

19 Mar 2008, 7:46 am

Both. Negawatts (energy savings) are often the cheapest route with the least impacts. But improving efficiency can only go so far. So some source will always be needed.

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
... and [electricity] lowers the necessity of insulation on buildings.


????

Don't you have that one backwards? Insulation on buildings is a relatively inexpensive way to reduce energy consumption over the long run.



velodog
Gold Supporter
Gold Supporter

User avatar

Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,374

19 Mar 2008, 3:59 pm

Izaak wrote:
What about the third alternative?

Use energy at whatever levels someone provides for us until someone actually provides proof that human energy use is providing a "dramatic and detrimental environmental catastrophe on a global scale."

In the mean time I am going to keep on using an air conditioner when the temperature hits 30degrees, a heater when the temperature drops below 10 degrees. I'll also keep driving my car, with too big an engine for its size, because I enjoy the feel of a sports car. And a companies environmental track record will continue to have no bearing upon MY purchasing decisions because it's much more important that they deliver a superior product at a competitive price that I am willing to pay.


The anti-man, is the anti-life.
I don't buy the global warming scam either. It might actually be easier for me to listen to Algore (famous for inventing the internet), if he did not own a house that uses 10X the energy of an average dwelling. Somehow paying Algore to buy "carbon credits" seems as likely to me to save the planet, as sending money to the "keep kids out of gangs and off drugs" scam will achieve that goal. Your alternative to Algore is to enjoy your sports car. My alternative to the sob sisters wanting to have a group hug with "disadvantaged youth" is to keep a 1911 loaded with 230 grain JHPs on my nightstand. Enjoy your sportscar. :)



The_Cucumber
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 514

19 Mar 2008, 4:30 pm

Both, and in the case of automotive energy, it won't be because we want to, it'll be because we need too.

Diesel prices just jumped to over $4 a gallon where I live for the first time ever. Gasoline is also at an all-time high at $3.30 a gallon. Because of the nearing inevitable event known as "peak oil", fuel prices will increase dramatically until they become totally unaffordable. Everything that relies on oil-based products (even for transportation) will also experience rapid price increases.

The only way to solve this is to start rapidly switching to an alternative energy sources while simultaneously switching to more fuel efficient vehicles.... about 18 years ago by some estimates.... oops.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Mar 2008, 5:43 pm

monty wrote:
Both. Negawatts (energy savings) are often the cheapest route with the least impacts. But improving efficiency can only go so far. So some source will always be needed.

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
... and [electricity] lowers the necessity of insulation on buildings.


????

Don't you have that one backwards? Insulation on buildings is a relatively inexpensive way to reduce energy consumption over the long run.


For glass exterior skyscrapers which have practically no insulation, air conditioning and heating are added costs to the people who rent them. It's what's more important to the customer, in their own thoughts, and not what matters in the long run that counts it would seem.