Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Running on hydrogen?

Expand Messages
  • mauk_mcamuk
    ... How is this off-topic? You gotta power that huge rail system with something, right? Have to keep the lights on in all those high- density housing units.
    Message 1 of 11 , Feb 9, 2004
      --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, Jym Dyer <jym@e...> wrote:
      > > I mean, how would you power a carfree city? 100 percent
      > > windmills? It'd never work. Tuck in a pair of nuclear plants
      > > out in the industrial districts and now you're talking! :)
      >
      > =v= I'm not going to rehash an off-topic nuclear power debate
      > on this list.



      How is this off-topic? You gotta power that huge rail system with
      something, right? Have to keep the lights on in all those high-
      density housing units. Got to keep the economic engine ticking over
      reliably, right? Magical pixie-dust power won't cut it.

      Also, to be honest, cars use a fairly small percentage of the USA's
      energy. A modern industrialized economy is a hungry mother, and
      unless we want to look at radical changes in the economy even beyond
      ditching the automobile, we're going to have to feed the economy lots
      of energy.

      Here, check this .pdf:

      http://eed.llnl.gov/flow/pdf/ucrlID129990-00.pdf

      That paper shows that in 2000, the USA consumed a total of 98.5
      Quadrillion BTU's of primary energy. Of that, only 26.6 Quads was
      used for transportation, and even carfree cities won't displace all
      of that.


      > Anything I might have to say on the matter was
      > said 30 years ago by Amory Lovins, and about the massive costs
      > of decommissioning in particular, 20 years ago by Karl Hess.
      >

      So, you're basicaly stuck in the past and have no defense for your
      baseless comments? :)

      How about a more up-to-date look at things:

      http://www.nei.org/doc.asp?docid=501

      According to that paper, $22.5 billion has been set aside already to
      decommission the US nuclear fleet, with many more billions to come.
      This is money charged to you, me, and everybody else who uses nuclear
      electricity, and is not charged to the government.


      > =v= As for what I'd so, it's the same thing I've been saying
      > for the four years I've been on this list: work on the city's
      > infrastructure, particularly the transportation infrastructure,
      > so as not to waste so much energy in the first place. That way
      > they can be powered largely, if not totally, from clean energy
      > sources.


      Name said sources, please.

      Windmills? Excellent powersource, except that wind has low capacity
      factors and is intermittant.

      Hydro? Wonderful source of power, except it has stringent siting
      issues, and droughts can be worrisome.

      Solar? Passive solar thermal is on the ragged edge of viabillity,
      photovoltaic is completely out of the question.

      Natural gas? Seen the price of gas lately? :)





      > <_Jym_>
      > --
      > Ads below? Just ignore 'em.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.