On 2001.12.09, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey@datamann.com> wrote:
> Photosynthesis is, at best, 3% efficient (compared to 35% for
> photovoltaics). Since we've already previously examined, analysed, and
> roundly dismissed photosynthesis as a viable energy alternative for
> technological civilization, anything less efficient should be similarly
> dismissed. The opportunity cost of filling up the landscape with solar
> collectors other than those naturally evolved is simply a stupid idea,
> as stupid as powering automobiles with maple syrup.
Why should we be looking to create energy sources that are
more efficient? Wouldn't it be smarter to try and create
energy consumers that are more efficient?
Maybe I really am the misguided one ...
-- Dossy
--
Dossy Shiobara mail: dossy@panoptic.com
Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/
"He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own
folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:25 MDT