Re: Solar, not nuclear
- From: "bill" <ford_prefect42@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 31 Jan 2007 08:59:12 -0800
On Jan 31, 11:13 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
bill wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
bill wrote:
In addition, he somehow is under the delusion that improving
efficiency is a smaller project than building a few thousand nuclear
plants. wrong on that count too, improving efficiency to levels that
would matter involves tearing down every building in the
industrialized world and building anew.
I can't agree with you there.
Making buildings more energy efficient isn't *that* difficult.
Graham
A 2-4% efficency is fairly easy, a 75% improvement is *hard*. if
you read the fools posts, he seems to be of the opinion that 90%
improvements are even possible, which they are manifestly not.
90% would indeed be pretty unrealistic..
Reducing energy requirements by 25% is still not that difficult for most
buildings. That alone would make a huge difference.
25% is a tough number to hit as a national average. In many
cases it would be easy, for example retrofitting the homes built in
the 1940s with better insuation is a big savings relatively easily.
However, in the example of an average apartment building,
realistically, 2% total energy reduction is a difficult and costly
thing to achieve. replacing ALL cars in the US with toyota priuses
would save roughly 25% of the transportation oil consumption for
example, due to the number of trucks and other commercial vehicles on
the road, and the number of other cars that are already pretty
efficient.
.
- References:
- Re: Solar, not nuclear
- From: bill
- Re: Solar, not nuclear
- From: Eeyore
- Re: Solar, not nuclear
- From: bill
- Re: Solar, not nuclear
- From: Eeyore
- Re: Solar, not nuclear
- Prev by Date: Re: Solar, not nuclear
- Next by Date: Plant optimizaiton Software / Links
- Previous by thread: Re: Solar, not nuclear
- Next by thread: Re: Solar, not nuclear
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|