From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: FEATURE: "Energy Without Oil" Executive Summary
Keywords: energy environment oil press
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:28:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.104647@roper.mc.ti.com> a722756@roper.mc.ti.com (W. Donald Rolph) writes:
>
>I find a great deal of discomfort with some hypotheses required to support this
>proposal:
> 
>     1)  96 mpg cars for the general case strike me as highly unrealistic
>
>     2)  doubling of fuel efficiency of power plants seems unlikely
>
>     3)  no mention is made for acomodating growth which barring intervention to
>           ensure a no growth policy will occur at between 2% and 4% a year
>           minimum
>
>     4)  no mention is made regarding handling the developing countries which can
>           potentially cause an explosion in the need for energy
>
>Statments like these which presuppose fundamental change in worldwide wpolicy
>without explicitly addressing these policy changes directly strike me as at best
>misleading.  Why not come out and express the realities:
> 
>     1)  Population growth must be controlled world wide
>     2)  Standards of living in the devleoped world will drop by perhaps as much
>            as 1/3  to 1/2
>     3)  Business will have to undergo major restructuriong to approach zero
>            emmisions and massive recycling
>     4)  progress in the devloping world will be slowed by a rigorous need to
>             support the environemntal controls which are at least being 
>             attempted in the developed world today
>     5)  Nonfossile energy sources need to be the predominant energy sources in
>             the developing world
>     6)  Nuclear energy sources will become ever increasingly important
>
>My list may not be complete, may overspecify some items etc., but these are the
>classes of policy changes required world wide for visions such as the proposed
>fossile free energy world to be achieved.   
>
>-- 
>
>Regards.
> 
>Don Rolph  a722756@pan.mc.ti.com WD3 MS10-13 (508)-699-1263

I think that implicit in any plan so radical as to not use any oil is that
some relationships will change.  Economic growth will require much less
increase in energy use, meaasured in absolutes.  Technology improved in
ways and degrees that cannot be specifically shown or proven now. And
so on.  If the developing world is to avoid oil, cost improvements in
whatever alternatives would be used must be larger than for the
developed world to do the same.  We certaintly cannot predict what
technology will be available in 50 years.  There are plenty of reaons
to be skeptical about such plans but that does not mean they are
impossible or that enormous hardships would be required. This is a
_possible_ blueprint.  It makes some assumptions and only time will
tell if they are true.  The question is how conceivable such changes
are.  And whether the goal is a worthwhile one.
-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson     (aka dingo in boulder)     dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment