[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
In article <32811072.4002365@news.midtown.net> alnev@midtown.net (A.J.) writes:
>
> On 03 Nov 1996 19:26:05 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
> wrote:
>
>
> >Thermodynamics only recognizes one entropy, because all of its
> >manifestations are transformable into one another. For example, water
> >that requires purification can be purified (its entropy reduced) by
> >using free energy from nuclear or solar power (thereby increasing the
> >entropy of the rest of the universe). However, neither nuclear nor
> >solar free energy will run out in the next 5 billion years, so Hanson
> >needs some additional argument to show that we are doomed in less than
> >34 years.
>
> Solar "income" is limited by the finite surface area that sunlight
> impinges on, and sunlight's intermittent & dispersed nature is what
> has prevented it from being practical on a huge scale. As for nuclear
> power, the dream of fusion is always out of reach and not guaranteed
> by any means (although cornucopians treat it as a given). The
> byproducts of fission are very risky and we would be unwise to put all
> our eggs in that basket - which is exactly why nuclear power has been
> so restricted. Wise people are thankfully making policy decisions in
> that area.
>
> Why not try the work-smarter approach of putting at least half our
> effort into *reducing demand* instead of always looking toward
> increasing the supply of everything? The assumption that we can
> support 15 billion people is the wrong attitude to begin with.
>
> - A.J.
There is enough available surface for solar energy to serve as our
main source. The present problem is that fossil fuel energy is very
much cheaper now. Nuclear energy is also cheaper and will remain so.
You can't say that wise people are making decisions - at least in the
U.S. The nuclear energy situation today is the result of indecision.
The U.S. is willing to supply nuclear reactors to North Korea.
Congress passed a law a few years ago that eases some of the
difficulties of building nuclear plants, but waste disposal is still
being postponed.
Some other countries have stopped nuclear power completely (Austria),
others are proceeding vigorously (Japan, China) and still others are
dithering.
Some people work on reducing demand for energy and others work on
increasing supply. "half our effort" has no definite meaning because
of this unless you mean something like bureaucratic effort.
A lot of money is going into developing more efficient motors, light
sources and heating systems. They should be used where
cost-effective, but more energy should be used where that is
cost-effective.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.
Follow-Ups: