3 ms·
I completly agree. I think there is a ton of low-hanging fruit in our economy, in terms of energy use. The fact is that energy has not been a resource worth con
by jordanb 16y ago
I completly agree. I think there is a ton of low-hanging fruit in our economy, in terms of energy use. The fact is that energy has not been a resource worth conserving during the entire industrial expansion thus far. Energy's always been something that is cheap and getting cheaper. So there's never been any economic imperative for energy efficiency, so it's always been cheaper to burn more energy than to invest in efficiency.
I think an economy in which renewable energy sources are exploited, and in which energy is used as efficiently as possible, is one which could continue expanding for a long time after peak oil extraction is reached.
- eru 16y agoYour argument may be too simple. If you have a look at the history of the steam engine, you will see massive gains in efficiency. Those gains are what allowed industrialisation to escape Britain in reach the rest of Europe, where coal was more expensive than in Britain and labour less so. (See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_steam_engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_steam_engine as a starting point. I am sure there are better sources.) Or look at the history of steel making. The 19th century alone saw huge decreases in the amount of coke used to make a single ton of steel---while improving quality all the time.