Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] OT: The Water-Energy-Connection
>Try it out sometime. Take the conversation back to the original energyI've always thought there's more to it than acknowledging that folks
>consumed (for anything, but water will do) and work forward. It's
>amazing how many heads pop into the sand. When someone talks about all
>the energy a building will require to heat and cool and light, remind
>them of all the energy that has already been burned up in the
>construction of the building. Try to take them on a little reverse trip
>to explore all the energy used in the construction. The mining and
>smelting and rolling and transporting of the steel, the cooking of the
>concrete, the mining and smelting of the copper, the formulation of
>various rubbers, plastics and chemicals from petroleum and all the
>thousands of gallons of gasoline and diesel used by all the workers and
>construction equipment and delivery vehicles. And of course, there's
>Most don't get it and quite a few just can't let their brains process
>the information. It's much more pleasant to just believe that things
>appear out of nowhere. And when we are done with those things, it's more
>pleasant to imagine they just somehow magically disappear. So as usual,
>we have met the enemy, and it is us.
>On a brighter note, there is certainly enough non-finite energy falling
>on Arizona each day to purify, pump and reuse every drop of water
don't want to hear it. It has something to do with the need not to
ask them to figure out how to conserve, or show empathy for
conservation, but to devise a better global system, more attuned to
human habits and foibles and realities, within which individuals can
see their way clear to trading and living with each other in a way
that leads to conservation.
If that sounds pie-in-the-sky, or simply daffy or confused, ok, but
the thing is: you can't reach a goal unless you at least articulate
it. So, I don't expect to reach such a system in my lifetime. Yet,
better to articulate my fallible opinion that we need such a thing,
than not to articulate it.
With respect to finite fuel supplies (the limited resource we focus
upon here) we can cite examples of how the global systems within which
we presently work are not sufficiently working to keep us from
disaster. When I buy gasoline at the pump, for example, I am not
paying for the damage I do to your air (and mine), and the property of
everyone, and so on.
But, devising system that does a better job of accounting for finite
resources, and property damages accruing under use of some resources,
is a goal that will be as worthy 1,000,000 years from now as today.
And we haven't finished devising it, and we have work to do.
It is a government philosophy issue really, so I reckon we can
continue (if we have inclination) in the alternative energy politics
yahoo group, as I do not wish to take this group too far off-topic
(unless there was an outcry that many feel it's on topic).
Certainly we have had one poster here recently, staying within talking
about fuels and vehicles, who has done a good job of pointing out that
with respect to depletion of finite oil, we have practiced wishful
thinking that depletion alone would solve many problems relating to
oil, in a timely fashion, but this wishful thinking of ours may not
hold true.... depletion alone is taking its time about driving oil
prices up, it is not (on its own) acting sufficiently swiftly to
forestall property damage or global economic and military conflict.