On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> The power consumed in the family home is a small fraction of the total
> per capita power consumption of an individual in modern technological
> civilization. Far more is consumed in the recovery, refining,
I don't know how reliable a source
http://www.sustainableenergy.org/resources/technologies/industry.htm is,
but it claims industrial sector is responsible for 38% of U.S. national
energy consumption, and 10% of petroleum consumption.
Residential and vehicular use is remarkably dirty power -- this is the key
factor. Emission. Photovoltaics and solar hydrogen are zero emission
within the operation cycle. Methanol is virtually zero emission (CO2 is
not a pollutant).
> production, and distribution of the products that each and every
> individual uses. Migrating all of the production of this power to the
> individuals property would rapidly bring home how significant this is
> compared to the miniscule amount of energy used in the home.
While hydrogen surplus can be stored and transported over wide areas, it
is industry's problem to meet their demands, and it is secondary in
impact, both because they're already pretty clean and do not dominate the
energy consumption.
> There is no such thing as a 'fully self reliant single family home' in
> the modern world. Even the act of building such homes leaves the
Um, here's one: http://www.ise.fhg.de/Projects/ES/ES_english.html I'm not
saying it's currently economically feasible, but this wasn't the gist of
the original argument. The original point is whether a human family can
sustainablyl exist on an energy flux existing over their property. This of
course doesn't include vehicular use and the energy trapped in the
materials passing throught the household (which can be partially
recaptured via thermal utilization of waste). These requirements are not
constant, but limited by our technology (brain in a vat, computronium as
habitat, etc).
> individual in debt for their lifetime paying the energy cost of
> creating all the materials used in it's construction.
Energy costs for the materials are usually not included into the
operational energy balance. It was not the point of the original argument.
This having said, it depends on the longevity of the construction, the
type of the materials, and the industrial processes used for its creation,
considering the release of emission and the input of energy (whether
fossil, or renewable). It is a different problem, and imo a lesser
problem.
> It is also for this reason that further advances in consumption
> efficiency will be getting progressively more expensive: industry has
> gone much farther than the homeowner in investing in efficiency.
Then, we should start with the homeowners, and the vehicular sector. Here
there is still good potential for enhancements.
-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBMTO: N48 04'14.8'' E11 36'41.2'' http://www.leitl.org
57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:25 MDT