Thank you too, and I hope the same. I am going to try to keep my
comments brief, thinking that we've both spoken our peace (and to
great purpose!!).
>> One of my points is that additional power plants, per se, is not
>> necessarily all that bad. Indiana has at least 15 power plants, and
>> even if they aren't as high-power as many others, they exist here
>> without nagatively impacting quality of life all that much (I only
>> know where a couple of them are) even though they are about mostly
>> using the dirtiest power generation technology still in operation in
>> the western world.
>
>I don't believe "without negatively impacting quality of life all that
>much" is accuate; see below.
Quality of life here is sky-high, probably about the best any people
have ever experienced in the history of humanity. The air and water
are clean and the flora thrive as well. What you are suggesting below
is that there's a price to be paid down the road because of global
warming, and that's a very good thing to remember. However, what I
was saying was that the presence of Indiana's power plants (which,
I'll reiterate one last time, use about the most polluting of all
known technologies) do not leave the landscape decimated nor the air
unbreathable.
>> Put another way, one of my main points is this: a lot of
>> environmentalists take an attitude of "every bit of development is
>> bad", I look at it more as "we want a very good cost/benefit ratio for
>> any development that we do." Even if my numbers were off, I still
>> like the cost/benefit of computing.
>
>I look at it this way: I have already grown up in a world
>significantly more polluted than that of my parents. At the current
>environmental cost of the energy we're using (assuming that it doesn't
>go up or down), my grand-children will inherit a world significantly
>more polluted than mine, and I'll be surprised if my
>great-great-grandchildren (should I have any) know what a clear blue
>sky looks like, or what it feels like to swim in the ocean.
If you view carbon-in-the-air as synonymous with pollution, then I
suspect that your claim is correct. I grew up in a city (Cleveland)
that was reknowned for a sizable river that "caught on fire", which of
course was really the pollutants in the river. I've visited that very
section of river several times recently (including my last trip to
visit my parents, remember that from the beginning of the
conversation?), and the river surface and the air around it and the
lake that it flows into are all unspeakably cleaner than when I was
young. I can't back it up with data, but I'm not the only one who
believes that the US is cleaner than it used to be.
Of course, your assertion was about the world, so that's different.
To some degree the US is exporting its pollution, but I think this is
less a factor than that we know more about how to do things cleaner
and as a society we're putting energy into actually doing it. These
things are good. I think the message here should be "don't let your
previous successes go to your head, there's still much to be
addressed!" That's a very different message than "the world just
keeps getting more and more polluted." Again, pollution is a
catch-all, there's no simple way to compare "how polluted" two things
are to each other. So, to talk specifically, we'd need to define what
kind of pollution we're interested in.
>I don't believe "every bit of development is bad", though I think I'm
>probably an environmentalist because it's painful for me to consider
>how quickly our world's wild spaces are being destroyed, taking the
>away from future generations for negligible economic gain today.
Right but again, if you're just looking at the geographical footprint
of a power plant, you get incredible bang-for-your-buck for that. set
aside a few acres for a power plant and the lives of a million are
transformed. If you ask me, if your goal is to preserve wild-space,
you're much better off not eating meat than limiting construction of
power plants. And of course, none of this compares with limiting
population growth.
>> and added up all of the power ratings of all the plants. The total
>> was 25,885 MW, or about 1.75 Itaipus. Using the "25 Itaipus to double
>> the world's computers" formula, this means that the COAL FUELED plants
>> in Indiana and Ohio provide about 7% of energy required to run the
>> world's computers. So, even knowing that this only includes coal fuel
>> plants, my previous assertion was about an order of magnitude off. I
>> stand corrected. But, 7% is definitely a dent in my book.
>
>I'll concede that's a dent, but how sustainable is that in terms of
>how long will that fuel be available in economically viable
>prices?...without considering the environmental impact of adding yet
>more carbon to our atmosphere.
I'm not suggesting we should build lots more coal plants. Remember,
Itaipu is a hydro-electric plant, it doesn't produce any carbon
emissions at all! Of course, hydro-power has huge environmental
impact, and I think putting on carbon blinders leads to some terrible
results. going on a tangent, if you visit the Inconvenient Truth's
website to calculate your own carbon impact,
http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/carboncalculator/
you'll find that just by the fact that you live in the midwest, you
can't compete with people who live in the Pacific Northwest. That's
because much of their power comes from hydro-electric power. That's
good for carbon emissions, but none of the envionmentalists I know
are really big fans of the countless dams in the PNW, and I've never
heard any suggest that we should be building more dams to save the
planet, even though that would reduce my personal carbon impact by a
huge percentage. Different technologies have different impact,
focusing on one thing misses the forest for the trees.
Now, there are certainly things that power companies in the midwest
can do to reduce their environmental impact, and I'm very much for
encouraging that. That's why I participate in Duke Energy's GoGreen
program.
http://www.duke-energy.com/indiana/products/gogreenpower.asp
through this program, I allegedly pay them to convert 400kWh per month
(slightly higher than my household usage) of power from a tradition
source to something greener for $10/month. I can't deny skepticism
about how well it works, but I did receive an announcement of some
green plant they were involved with, and I head the president of Duke
on NPR extolling the virtues of conservation. Sorry I'm not able to
find web links about these things, but it does seem that the company
is aware that people want them to be clean.
>I'm already not driving an SUV, switching to CFLs, minimizing the A/C
>and heating I use. It's up to the car geeks and lighting geeks and
>HVAC geeks to get excited about revolutionizing the power consumption
>of those areas—I don't know enough about internal combustion engines,
>myself, to be excited about the next big breakthrough in energy
>efficiency (and I'm cynical that the car companies and the oil
>companies even care about improving efficiency until the price of gas
>doubles again).
I actually do think the car companies are trying frantically to come
up with some other alternatives, and I'm glad about that. I bet
executives at the "Big Three" cringe every time they hear the word
"Prius". It does make them look lumbering that it takes them so long
to bring things to market, though.
>I'm a computer geek, on a computer geek mailing list, so that's what I
>get excited about and write about.
Very good point! And again, I certainly think improved computer
efficiency is great and I've already expressed my wish that thin
clients were a lot more common. I'm not against you. I just think
energy is better spent elsewhere. Indeed, what inspired my original
comment was the idea that 25 big power plants for a billion computers
was not a bad deal. I'd like to see how many big power plants it
would take to keep a billion people's living spaces at 72F. I'm not
going to take the time to compute it now, but I'd wager that it'd
dwarf that 25 number. Thus, I'll continue to encourage my friends to
heat/cool their homes wisely and think about their computers as a
sideline curiosity.
>I understand that when surrounded by SUVs, central air, and Boeing
>747s it's hard to get excited about reducing the power consumption of
>your computer at home, but I work with computer labs, and if we
>consider your estimate correct, then each of our 20 station computer
>labs is the equivalent of one automobile and we have the equivalent of
>7 or more automobiles running.
If you're not already doing so, turn them all off at night and you'll
cut that number to 3.5! :)
>Incidentally, my guess is you've forgotten to include planes, trains,
>boats(ships), energy plants (though I guess you do mention
>refrigerators and air conditioners, if that's what you meant), all
>kinds of manufacturing plants and factories, heating all our
>buildings, etc. in your pie graph if you think cars are 95%+ of our
>environmental impact.
right, I was aware of this actually. My graph was of just cars and
computers put together, and computers were already a pretty small
slice. add in those other things you mention and I suspect computers
will be near the bottom of the list.
>> And, I doubt that the typical third world
>> person is going to be more excited about a computer than they would be
>> about a car or an air conditioner as their quality of life improves.
>
>I am a third world person, and my perception is different than yours.
>
>In my tropical third-world country, air-conditioning is not a way of
>life like it is here in temperate Indiana, and neither is everyone
>owning a car.
>
>Would they rather have a car or air-conditioning? Well, a lot of them
>have a chance to and many of those decide it's not worth it. My dad
>has a car, and he rarely uses it. We'd rather take taxis or buses the
>vast majority of the time. My brother is a taxi driver. We also have a
>room with an air-conditioner, but it's only really on when my fiancée
>and I are visiting.
Very interesting, and thanks for the perspective. Based on your
descriptions, I'd wager that your family lives in a large city.
transportation needs in such places are very different than in less
densely populated areas. The value of a car/truck to a farmer must be
immense. Plus, all of those taxis, buses, etc, also use energy. More
efficient, yes, but supplying such services to a billion people
presently without them would be a huge impact as well...
>But we have three computers at my dad's house. Every one of my
>siblings has at least one computer at home (and my nephew has an
>XBOX). A good chunk of my extended family has computers in their home.
>And these are on and being used regularly (when the power isn't going
>out). I am in regular correspondence with my family, and am kept
>abreast of news, thanks to computers and the Internet.
>
>The number of institutes in my city alone that are dedicated to
>teaching people computer skills so they can get better-paying jobs is
>staggering.
It is indeed great! I love the Internet! :)
>The quality of life improvement of having your own car, or having air
>conditioning is really not all that great, IMHO, compared to the
>quality of life improvement of having a computer with Internet access,
>especially when you do a cost/benefit analysis.
I'm with you on the AC. I live without AC, and even worked at home
without one this summer (a few very uncomfortable days, I admit, but
it's definite doable, and I sure hope American's don't export their
wimpiness about ambient temperature). However, I hold to my position
on cars... we're extremely used to easy transportation, people who
don't have it would find it extremely desirable I think (whether they
are driving or a cab driver is). Anyway, it doesn't much matter
whether they'd prefer easy transportation or Internet/computer access,
because they will almost certainly want both once they can afford
them.
So much for keeping my comments brief! Sorry about that... I love
this kind of conversation, what can I say. Thanks for challenging and
educating me!
David
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
