home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.energy:7219 talk.environment:5718
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!naughty-peahen
- From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
- Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
- Subject: Re: Distributed Power
- Date: 25 Jan 1993 11:28:29 GMT
- Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
- Lines: 34
- Message-ID: <Jym.25Jan1993.0328@naughty-peahen>
- References: <1993Jan20.145326.28997@ke4zv.uucp>
- <1993Jan20.185622.5446@vexcel.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
-
- In article <1993Jan20.185622.5446@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com
- (Dean Alaska) writes:
-
- > I will certainly admit that there are more technological
- > hurdles for distributed renewable than centralized and I
- > imagine that early renewable will be centralized.
-
- =\= Based on what we've seen so far, I predict the opposite.
- Most renewable efforts thus far have been community- and
- individual-level. Perceptive blocks seem to inhibit large-
- scale (e.g. multi-community) commitment.
-
- > . . . The same is true of distributed alternative energy
- > systems. One system has little impact, but hundreds of
- > millions are a different story.
-
- =/= There are qualitative considerations that ameliorate
- a good part of that quantitative concern. And there's an
- additional factor: a major feature of every distributed
- renewable strategy I've ever heard of is integral energy
- efficiency. It's not the cost of a gizmo plus the cost
- of an efficiency thingy, it's the cost of an efficient
- gizmo that.
-
- > Since, historically, central power generation has worked well,
- > and mass transit hasn't, a conservative view is that we should
- > stick with proven methods.
-
- =\= I don't quite agree with either historical premise. I
- think the track record of central power generation shows great
- variance. Ditto for mass transit, which works very well in
- Europe. (And driving automobiles everywhere is very destructive
- -- hardly a "proven method.")
- <_Jym_>
-