More No physics contained within: was (Re: The troubles -Reply)

["Rauber, Joel Phys" <RAUBERJ@mg.sdstate.edu>]

FANNING THE FLAMES . . .

> A good part of the energy cost of running a
> modern country is involved in moving people, raw materials, and goods
> about.

I've heard this before, and I'm not sure I believe it. And it certainly 
shouldn't be used as a defence for driving 25 MPG cars instead of 45 MPG 
cars.

> One must also look at
> countries (like Japan and Switzerland) that import either their raw
> materials or even much of their manufactured goods.  The energy accounting
for such ends up on the supplying country's ledger sheet.

Lack of cheap raw materials is usually thought of as a detriment to the 
economy of a country.  The Swiss person making the per capita income has a 
easier time mail ordering from LL BEAN than I do and finds it easier to 
travel to California than I have in traveling to Switzerland.

> For another simplistic measure, weight the ENERGY/GNP/PERSON figures by
> area or population density to see that with such a measure the U.S. is one
> of the MOST efficient nations.

One might conclude that this argues for people in low density areas to move 
to high density areas to improve their efficiency, so that their efficiency 
doesn't have to be weighted by population density in order to be one of the 
most efficient.

None of these comments prove a thing; its damn hard to compare Apples to 
Oranges.  And shall we start talking about quality of life differences??

Enough, of this, I'm about ready to start introducing potential energy in my 
introductory class: I always feel a bit uncomfortable with how I do it. 
 Let's start a discussion thread on how various people do this.

Joel