bc on Tue, 26 Feb 2002 06:51:02 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Nettime-bold] For the Record: lunar digestive tract

  [for the archival records i would like it known that
  this is the message i was responding to, not the one
  that appeared prior to my response in the digest. as
  i was being sent the prior messages personally, and
  the one in the digest was sent to the list instead, and
  thus i was not able to see it before writing. yet it is
  in part identical to the post being responded to.  bc]

>Return-Path: <toby@solararmy.org>
>Received: from web20509.mail.yahoo.com (web20509.mail.yahoo.com 
>	by squid5.laughingsquid.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA22372
>	for <human@electronetwork.org>; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 22:32:34 -0800
>Message-ID: <20020224063238.7535.qmail@web20509.mail.yahoo.com>
>Received: from [] by web20509.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; 
>Sat, 23 Feb 2002 22:32:38 PST
>Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 22:32:38 -0800 (PST)
>From: Toby Barlow <toby@solararmy.org>
>Subject: Re: <nettime>  Re: the development of a solar infrastructure
>To: bc <human@electronetwork.org>
>In-Reply-To: <a05101200b89e1faae969@[]>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>X-UIDL: LFZ"!59'#!h"Z!!c*F!!
>I think your questions are good ones. I think there
>are ideas worth studying here. But the question I have
>is a fundamental one. Solar is a mature technology
>with an immature manufacturing and marketing base, so
>how do you change that?
>While weather patterns may change, a sudden influx of
>cloudy days, even if it's thirty percent more, would
>still leave you with ten or so free years of energy.
>If it's more than thirty percent, we're all screwed
>As for the solar panels adding to climate change -
>first of all if solar permeated so many rooftops that
>it was even an issue even within the next twenty five
>years, I would be surprised. But more to the point, if
>you are putting solar panels on rooftops that are
>already black with tar, it's adds nothing. So I can't
>imagine that is an issue either.
>I certainly respect and admire your long range
>forecasting. But I think, fundamentally, we have to
>get this thing going or else the massive climate
>change you speak of is a foregone conclusion, at least
>the way we're currently headed.
>Thanks. Toby.
>--- bc <human@electronetwork.org> wrote:
>>    [have not checked out the websites mentioned
>>    in your post on voting for solar (bonds), but i
>>    had a thought or two that was newly formed,
>>    given the change from the solar economy and
>>    the rhetoric roughly 30 years old now, with
>>    books and books about solar, much research,
>>    and still, as you mention, a mixed-energy-use
>  >   issue. here is the conundrum i see in 2002...
>  >

Nettime-bold mailing list