[GBlist] hydrogen/Re: [GBlist] house thoughts

[Renewable News Network <rnn@rnn.com>]

Dear Fred,

What you've written is a very positive statement, in many regards.  And
those, who have continued Donella Meadow's work, concur, not only with
the attitude, but with the promising  view of technology, especially if
one defines technology as, most simply, the way we do things.

In David's example of Chiloe, it appears that the technologies are eons
old and everything has come to fit together.  Today, in the US, with our
politics, mass marketing, and media-based public education, we've
developed the habit of leaping to the next new new thing and
unnecessarily throwing out the ancient ecological practices.  We also
tend to abandon last year's vision of the future, just when it gets
interesting in practical terms.

I tend to agree with what you've said, about energy, technology, and
attitude, except the emphasis ought to be less on government and
industry, as things stand, but, rather, on the many individual
innovators, with their new/old ideas -- and the consumers, too, who
are motivated to accept and promote positive and healthy changes.

There is a role for government, but I would question the notion
that a big new government program is going to deliver us from ourselves
and transform the energy landscape overnight.  Having read the fine
print, the hydrogen fuel cell car sounds more like the golden carrot
super efficient refrigerator.  Remember that?  After all the hoopla and
with the incentives exhausted, Westinghouse or GE, or whoever won the
contract, said:  oh, you wanted us the manufacture it?!  We thought the
ten million dollars was just to build a prototype!

Hydrogen could be good, but we're in the "energy too cheap to meter"
phase of its promotion.  If anybody wants to play around with hydrogen,
for real, they can get a tabletop demonstration kit from Paul Warsitz,
and donate it to a High School Science department, in order to
continue to really change things, here and now.

Yours truly,
Ross


On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 FUnger@aol.com wrote:

> Following up on David & Patricia's comments,
>
> It seems that the most important thing many guilt ridden environmentalists
> seem to leave out of the equation is the potential for technology and human
> ingenuity to improve lives without a negative impact on the environment. In
> fact, because history is a long story of increased progress and efficiency,
> the "fair share" that Patricia alludes to has been an ever increasing size
> share of an ever increasing size pie for an ever increasing number of people
> throughout history. Thankfully, at least so far, our intelligence has helped
> us avoid all the catastrophic limits predicted by Malthus and his heirs.
>
> Energy is the fundamental driver of human prosperity. If you look at the
> progress in the utilization of energy over the past millennium of so, one
> notes that as we've moved from wood to coal to oil to natural gas as primary
> energy sources, several major changes have happened at each step.
>
> 1) More useful energy was taken from each unit of fuel (greater efficiency)
> 2) The carbon byproducts and other nasties associated with utilization has
> dramatically decreased. (far less pollution)
> 3) Peoples lifestyles and comfort have dramatically improved.
>
> The history of energy technology is the history of increasing efficiency,
> increasing decarbonization of the energy system and increasing living
> standards for greater numbers of people. We are about to embark on the most
> significant technological transformation in history.
>
> Yesterday Energy Secretary Abraham announced what is likely the most
> important goal ever set for government energy policy: moving to a hydrogen
> fuel based economy. Once in place, the hydrogen economy promises vastly
> improved living standards for everyone on the planet. And the various
> processes of converting hydrogen to usable energy all involve some form of
> oxidation and all have as their only resulting byproduct H20, pure water.
>
> I am not arguing that we be irresponsible here, but that we embrace and work
> hard toward the solutions rather than anguishing under a restrained and
> limited vision of what is possible. We should be strongly supporting
> political initiatives like those announced yesterday. Let's quit guilt
> tripping ourselves and everyone else. We've been blessed with opportunities
> nobody else in history has ever had. We should endeavor to share those
> opportunities rather than renounce them. Enjoy your computers, stereos and
> the other gifts that are the benefit of a free and prosperous society and in
> your work try to help create a world where everyone else can enjoy these
> gifts too.
>
> Think about how much wealthier a typical poor family in America is today
> compared to the richest kings of the middle ages: indoor plumbing, hot
> running water, rapid accessible year round transportation, incredible
> education opportunities, modern health care, modern communication, a vast
> array of entertainment on demand through TV, radio and various other
> technologies, fresh fruits and vegetables from around the world year round,
> modern sanitation and clean water...........the list goes on. Really there
> are only a few ways that a poor person in America today is lacking compared
> to the kings of old. First is a lack of self esteem and dignity derived from
> comparison to the greater wealth, comfort and respect enjoyed by most others
> in our society and compared to the unfounded deference and other perks of
> power that kings got from those considered subservient to them. The other is
> the freedom from worry relative to their contemporaries. These differences
> are derived relative to their contemporaries however and not to each other.
> Measured in actual comfort, life span, health, and other meaningful measures
> of prosperity, America's poor are almost all actually wealthier than the
> wealthiest people alive just a century ago.
>
> Hopefully we can learn from lives such as those David described in Chile to
> figure out what really matters in our own lives, so that all of us can live
> the comfortable, meaningful and dignified lives that free modern societies
> are increasingly able to provide for everyone.
>
> Cheerfully waiting for the onslaught,
>
> Fred
>
>
> In a message dated 1/10/02 9:35:55 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> hollandfoley@acadia.net writes:
>
> << > What about not worrying about what we have, but what we might expect?
> What
>  > are the resources that the world has available on an average day and what
>  > would be our share (based on an average world population).  Whatever our
>  > share is -- we could then determine what size of home you might build with
>  > such a share.  Share of wood, share of metal, share of paper, share of
> stone
>  > , etc., that are produced everyday.  Bet even the smallest of our homes are
>  > using far in excess of our share of the world produce.  Especially when I
>  > include the place I work, the malls I shop in, the roads I drive on, etc.,
>  > But when you understand this number and you can then appreciate that for
>  > every extra piece I use up, someone else goes without.  We deal everyday in
>  > our work with the technical choices, we often over look the human impact
>  > implications of those choices.  Anyone have these numbers?  What's my
> share?
>  > How much am I really using.  How much should I give back?
>
>  Dear Patricia:
>
>  Thanks for considerate and well-expressed thoughts.  You're not far from the
>  idea of an "ecological footprint," first explored by William Res at the
>  University of British Columbia (I think).  You might also want to take a
>  look at "The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices," by
>  Michael Brower and Warren Leon.
>
>  I think I was once in a place where folks had the "statistical average"
>  amount of resources - the island of Chiloe, in southern Chile.  Compared to
>  our lives, things were pretty hardscrabble there, but - everyone had enough
>  to eat, had a basic shelter, work to do and almost everyone was literate.
>  (In fact, I think they were better educated than many of my fellow
>  Americans.)  Parents had children in the expectation that they'd live to
>  adulthood, and family ties seemed very strong.  The basics were covered, and
>  folks there seemed as happy, healthy and well-adjusted as anyone I know here
>  - perhaps more so.  Being there helped me realize just how much of my own
>  life is just clutter.  I'd like to go back there someday.
>
>  I'm writing this lovely philosophy on a several thousand $ computer system,
>  while the CD player drones in the background.
>
>  Hypocritically yours,
>
>  David Foley
>  --
>  Holland & Foley Building Design L.L.C.
>  232 Beech Hill Rd. >>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by REPP/CREST, creator of
> Solstice http://www.crest.org, and BuildingGreen, Inc., publisher of
> Environmental Building News and GreenSpec http://www.BuildingGreen.com
> ______________________________________________________________________
>


______________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by REPP/CREST, creator of
Solstice http://www.crest.org, and BuildingGreen, Inc., publisher of
Environmental Building News and GreenSpec http://www.BuildingGreen.com
______________________________________________________________________