From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:10:25 MDT
Eugene Leitl wrote:
>
> On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, S.J. Van Sickle wrote:
>
> > Cheaper and safer? Such as?
>
> As a stopgap measure, coal, oil and methane, as microinstallations.
None of those are cheaper or safer.
> Meanwhile, getting non-Carnot processes running with fuel reformers up to
> speed, then phasing out fossils with hydrogen/photovoltaics, both
> terrestrial and using photovoltaics sats (launched from Luna, and
> microwaving power down to rectenna grids on ground via phased array
> integrated into panels).
Sure, but not cheaper until after on the order of a 10 year
massive down payment.
>
> Nuke really makes no sense in biosphere context.
>
This is simply an empty assertion.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:54 MST