RE: [asa] Psychology, technology, & the sugar-substitute brouhaha

You know what else kills birds? Cars. And tall
buildings. And cell towers...etc...

Everything has trade-offs, even wind energy. But the
bottom line is that wind energy (appropriately
located), on the whole, is better than fossil fuels.

In Christ,
Christine

--- Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> > Wind energy (5 cents/kWh) now is on a par with
> > natural gas. New wind costs the same per kWh as
> new coal (cost of
> > construction of new plant, depreciated over
> operating lifetime,
> > allowing for maintenance, not including carbon
> taxes); depreciated
> > wind costs much less than depreciated coal.
> (Only, there's very
> > little depreciated wind in the US, since most of
> it has been
> > installed only recently.)
>
> And wind turbines kill birds, which eat insects,
> which otherwise have to
> be killed with chemicals, which requires coal or oil
> again.
>
> ~Dick Fischer
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Keith Miller
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 7:53 PM
> To: asa@lists.calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Psychology, technology, & the
> sugar-substitute
> brouhaha
>
> I am forwarding this comment from Ruth:
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > Thanks. Interesting discussion. Merv's right in
> part; our owning
> > a Prius makes us sometimes more likely to make
> small trips when we
> > should wait and combine.
> >
> > But:
> >
> >> Realistically, the choices for energy at our
> current consumption
> >> levels is only between dirty choices (all).
> Solar would be (is)
> >> clean, but can't satiate our energy demand in any
> substantial
> >> way. So I don't see oil and solar in any real
> competition with
> >> each other; they are simply different markets --
> solar being
> >> useful to get rid of battery necessity on small
> items or prevent
> >> power companies from having to run lines to
> remote communications
> >> switching devices -- solar shines in those
> niches. But when when
> >> we fill our tanks with gas & want to power large
> vehicles at high
> >> speeds, solar won't cut it. So we choose
> between gasoline (or
> >> maybe ethanol) or for an electric car, coal, or
> nuclear. These
> >> are all dirty in their own way -- nuclear in a
> slightly different
> >> way.
> >>
> >
> > I beg to differ. Wind energy (5 cents/kWh) now is
> on a par with
> > natural gas. New wind costs the same per kWh as
> new coal (cost of
> > construction of new plant, depreciated over
> operating lifetime,
> > allowing for maintenance, not including carbon
> taxes); depreciated
> > wind costs much less than depreciated coal.
> (Only, there's very
> > little depreciated wind in the US, since most of
> it has been
> > installed only recently.)
> >
> > Solar energy, at 10 cents/kWh, IS competitive with
> other sources in
> > high-cost environments: CA, HI, Japan. Europe,
> with green-friendly
> > regulation.
> >
> > Finally, the least expensive clean energy is
> CONSERVATION--which is
> > as green as it gets. I suppose the choice not to
> drive is
> > conservation in action. And Merv is correct, I
> suspect, that if/
> > when we reach the stage of plentiful clean energy,
> we will likely
> > use it as profligately as we have used fossil
> fuels for the last
> > century.
> >
> > Feel free to forward to ASA if it fits discussion.
> >
> > Ruth
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
> message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
> message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Feb 13 21:37:09 2008