🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Jym.25Jan1993.0328@naughty-peahen> Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
>
>> Since, historically, central power generation has worked well,
>> and mass transit hasn't, a conservative view is that we should
>> stick with proven methods.
>
>=\= I don't quite agree with either historical premise.  I
>think the track record of central power generation shows great
>variance.  Ditto for mass transit, which works very well in
>Europe.  (And driving automobiles everywhere is very destructive
>-- hardly a "proven method.")
>    <_Jym_>


Driving automobiles is "distributed" transportation. As you remark
about distributed generation, it's qualitatively different than
the centralized approach. While neither is as efficient en masse
as central systems, qualitative factors may dictate a preference
for one over the other at a personal level. The history of power
generation and transportation in this country shows a preference
for central power generation and distributed transportation. The
former happens to match well with high en masse efficiency (energy
and economic), reliability, and (user) convienence. In the US, the 
latter also equates with higher efficiency (in user time), higher 
reliability (on user demand), and greater (user) convienence.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |