12-28-2009, 06:14 AM
A major shortcoming of the discussion in the editorial -- and, generally, in discussions about energy -- is that zero is said about using energy more efficiently.
Producing more energy may well be necessary to replace imported fossil fuels. As for best return on investment, energy conservation, i.e., increased efficiency of use, is the best. Of course, vested interests in the form of "energy developers" never ever want this to be in the discussion.
As for energy sources and infrastructure, distributed energy is not adequately considered. Again, there is less to be gained by "energy developers" when rural communities and rural households control their own energy.
Geothermal, wind, solar, and tidal are truly sustainable and renewable. So-called 'waste-to-energy' is an expensive, dirty deception that is neither sutainable nor renewable.
James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park
Producing more energy may well be necessary to replace imported fossil fuels. As for best return on investment, energy conservation, i.e., increased efficiency of use, is the best. Of course, vested interests in the form of "energy developers" never ever want this to be in the discussion.
As for energy sources and infrastructure, distributed energy is not adequately considered. Again, there is less to be gained by "energy developers" when rural communities and rural households control their own energy.
Geothermal, wind, solar, and tidal are truly sustainable and renewable. So-called 'waste-to-energy' is an expensive, dirty deception that is neither sutainable nor renewable.
James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park