From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat May 26 2001 - 15:02:57 MDT
Brian D Williams wrote:
>
> >From: Spudboy100@aol.com
>
> >I am enthusiastic about solutions to the energy crises(s) of
> >whatever flavor oil for gasoline, of California's situation.
> >Having said that, after many years of watching what OPEC did twice
> >in the 1970's, and the response to it, I remain skeptical of Amory
> >Lovins's claims. Micro turbines are expensive, comparatively, as
> >are fuel cells. I was was reading a New York Times business
> >article today, and the greatest seller of alternate power
> >generation is not Allied Signal(mircoturbines) or Ballard Power
> >Systems(fuel cells), but Caterpillar Inc. maker of diesel
> >generators-thats OIL-fired generators. I get cranky when the
> >Lovin's make political statements, rather then technical
> >and economic ones. Let the dollar speak instead.
> >-Cynically, yours, Mitch
>
> I think the answer as the president has made clear is both
> conservation and new sources.
>
The answer should include using existing sources that we shunted
aside for often silly reasons. Yes, I'm talking about nuclear
power. There are many alternate nuclear plant designs that
overcome many of the downsides (although these were vastly
overplayed) of conventional nuclear power generation plants.
But in todays climate you can't get them built and operational
or built without so many beyond all reason constraints and
layers of redundant backups as to make them utterly
uneconomical.
Stupid operational and governmental policies aside (Chernobyl),
nuclear power is far and away safer and more able to fulfill our
energy needs now and for the reasonably forseeable future.
Conservation is a ridiculous "answer". It is not workable.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:48 MST