[CrashList] Re: Why 'alternatives' are no alternative
earthrts at pa.net
Tue Sep 19 14:53:11 MDT 2000
re. energy issues, you may want to check out www.blacklightpower.com
> From: "embarkadero" <embark at epud.net>
> Reply-To: crashlist at lists.wwpublish.com
> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 04:59:07 -0700
> To: "crashlist" <Crashlist at lists.wwpublish.com>
> Cc: <shmage at pipeline.com>
> Subject: Re: [CrashList] Re: Why 'alternatives' are no alternative
> From: Shane Mage
>> The following, from the 16/9 Science News, is only one of many refutations
>> of the manic doomsday pessimism of Mr. Jones:
> This is no refutation at all, being yet another Pollyanna dream state in the
> scientism of denial. The evidence is all around you, and such pejoratives as
> "manic doomsday pessimism" only serve to demonstrate that you haven't
> investigated the issue seriously, but have only searched for some
> superficial evidence to support your wishful thinking.
> Here are a couple of points for you to consider before rejecting the crash:
> 1) Start with Weiss's apt observation: "Because processes that use sunlight
> to extract hydrogen remain costly and inefficient, fossil fuels still supply
> the hydrogen in most fuel cells."
> Now relinquish your denial long enough to actually calculate the process
> that would replace "costly and inefficient, fossil fuels " with Stuart Licht
> 's process. How much energy is required to produce enough of those fuel
> cell systems to replace fossil fuel? Where does THAT energy come from? Where
> does that energy come from in competiton with fossil fuel demand for everday
> uses? Now ...calculate the number of Licht-based systems required to
> totally replace the demand currently filled by fossil fuels. Then ... add
> the additional demand projected by the time your Licht systems are in place.
> (You must have all systems in the world converted by 2025.) Don't fudge,
> please, and don't invoke the deus ex machina of "science will save us ...
> somehow". Just do the actual real-time calculations of your projected
> changeover. Really do the calculations, be honest.
> Use your own research and sources, that way you can avoid suspicion that
> Mark's or mine are skewed toward chicken little.
> Then see if your think Mark's statement is manic ... or unduly pessimistic.
> 2) Explain what the small percentage of fossil fuels that are currently
> devoted to petrochemical fertilizers will be replaced with. Calculate the
> effect that withdrawing petrochemical fertilizer from word agriculture will
> have upon population. Don't just guess, please. Be honest and seriously
> examine the issue. Again ... research your own sources.
> Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
More information about the A-List