Re: [pf] simple-thinking - Right or Wrong?

>At 12/17/01 1:16:10 PM EST, David M. wrote to PF including the earlier:
>
>> I mention the _increased_ use of coal for five-to-twelve years, here, 
>> as an example where "we're for it or against it" is far too simple.
>>    If it appears simple, it's suspect, IMO.
>>  
>> · A discussion list is for discussion of ideas; so lets discuss them!
>
At 13:36 17/12/2001 EST, Priscilla wrote to PF:
> ... driving coal mining into mountain-top removal -- an ecological
disaster in and of itself.
>
>Even with the older methods still employed around here: mine seepage and
runoff has made much of the water table around here unusable. ...
>
> ...there is a steady stream of coal trucks in and out *in addition to*
the trains.
>
> ...[coal-fired power] plants also yield emissions that contribute
mightily to acid rain. The destruction of the air quality and high altitude
forests in the Smokies is attributable to the coal fired plants much
further north.
>
> ... coal miners were often in poor health from black lung and other
diseases. Coal mining accidents are frequent and tragic. I saw my share.
Electrocution in the mines is more frequent than you might guess. So it is
a dangerous occupation.
>
>So, David, I'm honestly curious: why do you favor coal powered plants?
>

· You're doing what my post was about: over-simplifying (in this case, what
I said).

· First, I was giving examples from my posts to a NZ list, and in NZ we use
heat-energy electric power plants (coal or gas) for only about 25% of our
total - the rest being mainly old hydro, and now increasingly wind (though
that is still tiny).

· So I was not advocating the completely-excessive use of coal as seen in USA.

· Secondly, I'm glad you quoted my bit about _increased_ coal use (for
electricity) being only temporary; it puts your question: "why do you favor
coal powered plants?" into context.

  The question can be stated (not simply: "coal is bad; get rid of it") :-

"How do we phase-out CO2-producing electric energy supply methods? :- 
- Decrease current coal use quickly to 10% in 7 years, while initially
increasing gas and then dropping it to 10%, over 18 years, while efficiency
and renewables take hold?
- Keep coal at present rate-of-use (to not use up gas too quickly, and to
minimise "demand" for nuclear if you're talking about the USA) in order to
spin out gas supplies to be the main portable energy needed for transport?
  or:
- _Increase_ coal use for electric energy to save even more gas, but only
for a strictly limited period ("five-to-twelve years") while the road
transport fleet becomes converted to gas-using hybrids and fuel cells.

· The point is to drive hard for the final goal of living sustainably on
this earth (and we know _very_ little about how to do that at present,
though we do know what is unsustainable), making choices among the several
"evils" which are our main options, along the way.

· I know human nature well enough to be certain we in the North (in
general) cannot start to "live right" overnight; I just hope we can get
most of the way before I die (that world-shaking event will occur around
2020 - and I don't say "inshallah" - as-god-wills).

· I know most people like to think they "know what's right", but almost no
human activity is that simple.

David.
David MacClement davd @ ihug.co.nz (remove spaces)
http://davd.tripod.com/GrAPR-011214.html#top
http://www.geocities.com/davd.geo/index.html#top
***********************************************

==^================================================================
This email was sent to: csf@moscow.com

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxifP.a2yAZH
Or send an email to: positive-futures-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================