Thanks for the html tutorial. There's a handy hyperlink button I can use when writing an entry, but I don't see one to use when replying.
One of the nifty things about concentrated solar seems to be that it doesn't have to involve photovoltaics (though some do, I think). Others use the heat to spin a turbine (through steam, for example).
Understood, and I figured this is where you were coming from, but I appreciate the fleshing-out. We need structural changes in the very ways we go about living. How to thrive without growth looks to me like one of the bigger questions of our time.
I agree with your points and examples. I do think it's good to be open-minded about the possibility of advances that are beyond our current understanding and capability. History is full of smart people saying "it can't be done" (lightbulb, transistor). Of course that raises another good point: just because we can do it doesn't mean we should. We need to decide as a culture what additional requirements we would have for any future solutions (besides cheap and plentiful... wait, are those redundant? :) For now, we can hope for a soft landing using what we already know how to do, and in the meantime we should redefine the problem as a social one rather than a physical one. I imagine that technical progress in a newly defined social context might be more meaningful, anyhow.
I'm glad this isn't directed at me personally. I am conscientious about conservation, energy, where my food comes from, stuff like that. Not that I couldn't be doing more, I'm sure. There are dozens of farmers' markets and CSAs nearby and I should take more advantage of them. I, for one, have not forgotten that cities can be beautiful places to live. It would be nice if home and work were closer, but my commute is shorter than most (hopefully becoming shorter in the near future).
natch
Thanks for the html tutorial. There's a handy hyperlink button I can use when writing an entry, but I don't see one to use when replying.
One of the nifty things about concentrated solar seems to be that it doesn't have to involve photovoltaics (though some do, I think). Others use the heat to spin a turbine (through steam, for example).
Understood, and I figured this is where you were coming from, but I appreciate the fleshing-out. We need structural changes in the very ways we go about living. How to thrive without growth looks to me like one of the bigger questions of our time.
I agree with your points and examples. I do think it's good to be open-minded about the possibility of advances that are beyond our current understanding and capability. History is full of smart people saying "it can't be done" (lightbulb, transistor). Of course that raises another good point: just because we can do it doesn't mean we should. We need to decide as a culture what additional requirements we would have for any future solutions (besides cheap and plentiful... wait, are those redundant? :) For now, we can hope for a soft landing using what we already know how to do, and in the meantime we should redefine the problem as a social one rather than a physical one. I imagine that technical progress in a newly defined social context might be more meaningful, anyhow.
I'm glad this isn't directed at me personally. I am conscientious about conservation, energy, where my food comes from, stuff like that. Not that I couldn't be doing more, I'm sure. There are dozens of farmers' markets and CSAs nearby and I should take more advantage of them. I, for one, have not forgotten that cities can be beautiful places to live. It would be nice if home and work were closer, but my commute is shorter than most (hopefully becoming shorter in the near future).