Mike Hord wrote:
[snip]
> In the final analysis, as long as our energy usage keeps going up,
> we're going to slowly roast our planet, no matter where the energy
> comes from.  "Free" energy (as recently discussed) would be a
> nightmare- overnight, huge amounts of thermal energy would be put
> into play.

Use the free energy to make mirrors that will reflect solar energy back into 
space, and thus control the temperature of the planet. :)

AFAIK, the amount of thermal energy produced by, say, nuclear power is 
insignificant compared to the greenhouse effect of CO2 released from burning 
fossil fuels.

> Efficiency is the key.  Instead of moving one person per 1.5 tons of
> metal being shuffled around, move ten (public transportation).

Out of curiosity, how often do you ride the bus?

I find that in most places, public transportation is vastly inferior to 
traveling by car. For example, here in Phoenix it takes about fifteen 
minutes to reach a certain destination by car, and approximately an hour to 
get there by bus. Not counting the walking time to/from the bus stations.

> Instead of releasing 80% of the energy devoted to lighting as
> heat, release 5% (or whatever the incandescent vs. LED breakdown
> is).

This may be counterintuitive, but fluorescent lights are about twice as 
energy efficient as LEDs.

> I read somewhere that in the 20-odd years since the massive
> regulatory crackdown on refrigerator efficiency, that alone has
> saved approximately one Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's worth
> of energy.

Yes, government incentives have the potential to increase energy efficiency. 
However, cost/benefit must always be considered.

Best regards,

Vitaliy 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist