[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APD] solar tanks - Barr
> 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.
> > is nice to dream, but dreaming doesn't solve problems.
> > The only solution to our growing energy problem is to bite the
> > 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.
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com