Re: [APD] solar tanks - Barr

["Wise, Nicholas" <Nicholas_Wise at eon-us.com>]

> Bill D wrote:
> > Most if not all of  those so called "savings" come at the expense of

> > the taxpayers or rate payers.
> > 
> > Solar and windmill and geothermal and landfill and soybean power , 
> > etc. are not economical by any measurement, and even if they were, 
> > they would produce only a small amount of the energy that we need.
It 
> > is nice to dream, but dreaming doesn't solve problems.
> > 
> > The only solution to our growing energy problem is to bite the
bullet 
> > and start to build the next generation of nuclear plants.  The 
> > professional naysayers have managed to block nuclear power for too 
> > long.  The time for us to start making up for lost time is now.
> > 
> 
> I agree. Why waste time spending millions on subsidizing 
> solar, wind, and biomass power when you can spend billions 
> building Yucca style facilities ... plus you get bonus 
> nuclear materials to watch over for a couple tens of 
> thousands of years to boot. I don't know what those wacky 
> environmental wackos could have against that. Gotcher 
> thinkin' cap on don'tcha ;)
 
There is only enough nuclear fuel to meet the worlds energy supplies for
another 50-100 years.  Even by reusing spent rods like some places in
Europe, it simply is not a long term solution.  I had a class on this
last semester.  It is a good alternative to supplement and perhaps
lessen our oil dependence thus lengthening time for both, but we can't
rely on it.

-Nick

_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants