Hill Heat: The enemy is conventional thinkingScience Policy Legislation Actiontag:www.hillheat.com,2005:TypoTypo2007-08-16T14:08:10-04:00Brad Johnsonurn:uuid:b0a40e82-7726-4bac-a2fc-a4a38aa2ceb12007-08-16T14:02:00-04:002007-08-16T14:08:10-04:00The enemy is conventional thinking<p><a href="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/15/9316/71425">Thomas Casten</a> addresses the potential gains in carbon reduction by focusing on the energy distribution systems:
<blockquote>I’ve done a study of what would happen if the United States went all the way with power recycling. We could cut our electric fuel in half. We could drop <span class="caps">CO2</span> by between 20 and 30 percent. And we could make money on the first 25 percent drop with today’s technology. In the process, the technology would improve and we would be able to go farther.</blockquote>
And the consequences of ignoring this sector:
<blockquote>In 1900, about 3.5 percent of the potential energy put into electric generation actually became delivered electricity, and about 1.5 percent of it ended up as useful work. The curve rises for the next 60 years, as these things get more efficient. By 1960, about 32.5 percent of the potential was arriving as electricity. In 2005, we’re at 33 percent. The electrical generation industry stopped improving its efficiency.</blockquote></p>
<p><a href="http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=805">Natasha Chart</a> addresses the question of agricultural practices and soil carbon content:
<blockquote>The <a href="http://www.carbonfarmersofamerica.com/">Carbon Farmers of America</a> assert that, “[i]f the American people were to restore the soil fertility of the Great Plains that we have destroyed in the last 150 years, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide would be reduced to near pre-industrial levels.”</blockquote></p>
<p>Both approaches offer massive opportunity for everyone from corporations to families.</p>
<p>They conclude, respectively, “The enemy is conventional thinking,” and “Answers could be right under our feet.”</p><p><a href="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/15/9316/71425">Thomas Casten</a> addresses the potential gains in carbon reduction by focusing on the energy distribution systems:
<blockquote>I’ve done a study of what would happen if the United States went all the way with power recycling. We could cut our electric fuel in half. We could drop <span class="caps">CO2</span> by between 20 and 30 percent. And we could make money on the first 25 percent drop with today’s technology. In the process, the technology would improve and we would be able to go farther.</blockquote>
And the consequences of ignoring this sector:
<blockquote>In 1900, about 3.5 percent of the potential energy put into electric generation actually became delivered electricity, and about 1.5 percent of it ended up as useful work. The curve rises for the next 60 years, as these things get more efficient. By 1960, about 32.5 percent of the potential was arriving as electricity. In 2005, we’re at 33 percent. The electrical generation industry stopped improving its efficiency.</blockquote></p>
<p><a href="http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=805">Natasha Chart</a> addresses the question of agricultural practices and soil carbon content:
<blockquote>The <a href="http://www.carbonfarmersofamerica.com/">Carbon Farmers of America</a> assert that, “[i]f the American people were to restore the soil fertility of the Great Plains that we have destroyed in the last 150 years, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide would be reduced to near pre-industrial levels.”</blockquote></p>
<p>Both approaches offer massive opportunity for everyone from corporations to families.</p>
<p>They conclude, respectively, “The enemy is conventional thinking,” and “Answers could be right under our feet.”</p>