On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Dori Schmetterling wrote:

> I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first
> opponents of wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame
> them?)

Me. I can blame them. Wind power is presently *the* best, cleanest answer
by far. The specious "bird cuisinart" claims are weak at best and serve
only to fuel supposition that forced austerity is the goal, rather than
the stated goal of reducing pollution and consumption of nonrenewable
fuels.

DS

z wrote:
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<olesrvsl6emilb2rgfbes8n605i91jdluj@4ax.com>...
>
>>>>>>>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is
>>
>> worse than
>>
>>>>>>>the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case
>>
>> is being
>>
>>>>>>>dramatically overstated.
>
>
> I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
> it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
> billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
> conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
> fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
> dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
> cities as the ocean rises.
>


Speaking as a conservative, I think that investing in energy efficiency
is a good thing in and of itself, and has its own merit. What I don't
support is government mandates that stress the economy by setting
impossible goals for a given technology state, use of excessive amounts
of tax dollars, and the scare tactic of claiming that coastal cities are
going to flood- because its far from proven that they are. I also
disapprove of liberals broad-brushing conservatives as being opposed to
everything that is environmentally sound- we aren't. We're just opposed
to environmental placebos like electric cars and solar cell farms- which
make good press but (so far) will cause more environmental harm than
good in the long run. Examples of things that aren't a waste of money
and effort? Hybrid cars, wind power, geothermal power, combined-cycle
solar power (capturing solar heat to drive turbines), co-generation
facilities.... quite a big list, actually.

"What I don't support is government mandates that stress the economy by
setting impossible goals for a given technology"
Unfortunately, sometimes this is the only way to force the improvement in
the technology... EX. if we forced all new constrution in "sunny cities"
(cities with x% of sunny days) to have a certain amount of energy generated
by solar, then the solar technology would advance and the price would drop
in a few years.

"Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:9JWdnRgOEYn8y1-iRTvUqQ@texas.net...
> z wrote:
> > Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:<olesrvsl6emilb2rgfbes8n605i91jdluj@4ax.com>...
> >
> >>>>>>>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure
is
> >>
> >> worse than
> >>
> >>>>>>>the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
case
> >>
> >> is being
> >>
> >>>>>>>dramatically overstated.
> >
> >
> > I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
> > it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
> > billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
> > conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
> > fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
> > dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
> > cities as the ocean rises.
> >
>
>
> Speaking as a conservative, I think that investing in energy efficiency
> is a good thing in and of itself, and has its own merit. What I don't
> support is government mandates that stress the economy by setting
> impossible goals for a given technology state, use of excessive amounts
> of tax dollars, and the scare tactic of claiming that coastal cities are
> going to flood- because its far from proven that they are. I also
> disapprove of liberals broad-brushing conservatives as being opposed to
> everything that is environmentally sound- we aren't. We're just opposed
> to environmental placebos like electric cars and solar cell farms- which
> make good press but (so far) will cause more environmental harm than
> good in the long run. Examples of things that aren't a waste of money
> and effort? Hybrid cars, wind power, geothermal power, combined-cycle
> solar power (capturing solar heat to drive turbines), co-generation
> facilities.... quite a big list, actually.
>
>
>
>

The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.

There currently isn't any "answer" to replacing fossil fuels, except
nuclear, to generate the kind of energy the world requires. Wind, solar,
bio-mass, hydro, conservation are all great but aren't sufficient.

If we could just make nuclear "safe-enough" in terms of preventing accidents
and disposing of the waste, it can produce sufficient energy to power
growing economies without spewing exhaust into the air.



"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
newsine.SOL.4.44.0311241303330.17586-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Dori Schmetterling wrote:
>
> > I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first
> > opponents of wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame
> > them?)
>
> Me. I can blame them. Wind power is presently *the* best, cleanest answer
> by far. The specious "bird cuisinart" claims are weak at best and serve
> only to fuel supposition that forced austerity is the goal, rather than
> the stated goal of reducing pollution and consumption of nonrenewable
> fuels.
>
> DS
>

In article <3fc2409e$0$7007$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>, Dori Schmetterling wrote:
> Nuclear power is not the answer, unfortunately. In Britain in the
> fifties/sixties it was promoted as the ultimate source of cheap power, but
> we have had nothing of the sort; it was just a chimera. The company that
> was left with the nuclear power stations after privatisation needs large
> state subsidies just to keep going. And we can't close it down because we
> don't what to do with the nuclear materials. All European countries (except
> maybe France) have put nuclear power on hold or have decided against it.
>
> Not only can accidents happen in the west (Three Mile Island, among others),
> there are huge issues of waste disposal. AFAIK, no waste from UK nuclear
> reactors has been permanently stored anywhere. And when does nuclear
> material with a half-life of centuries finally degrade into harmless
> components?


So you base your fears on 1/4 century or older technology.

If CO2 is as big of a problem as we are told it is, radioactive waste
is but a tiny fraction as bad. If CO2 is really that bad, then nukes
are one way to go to a less damaging source of energy. Coal plants
actually spew more radioactive materials than nuclear plants.

> I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first opponents of
> wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame them?), but
> nuclear power is not, either.

With the those politically on the left and environmentialists opposing
large scale wind farms proposed by various developers who see wind
turbines as a money maker that can provide clean energy they show their
true stripes. They want to control how people live, and abundant clean
energy threatens that goal.

In article <lQuwb.8682$t01.1922@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
> The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
> fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.

Properly placed large scale wind farms can take some of that load or
in the very least make enough energy so that new fossil fuel plants
need not built.

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bpt48s$h0v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google.com...
> >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
> >> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
> >> > >
> >> > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> >> >
> >> > No we don't!
> >> >
> >> > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
> >concentration
> >> > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief
does
> >not prove
> >> > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
> >anything. The
> >> > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs.
Looking
> >at one
> >> > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS.
As a
> >> > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research
> >don't even
> >> > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last
few
> >years.
> >> > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying
to
> >infere
> >> > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The
> >errors
> >> > associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes
they
> >are
> >> > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then
> >groomed the
> >> > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
> >treated as a
> >> > loon.
> >>
> >> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
> >> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> >> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
> >> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> >> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> >> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> >> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they "decided
> >> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there some
> >> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> >> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw the
> >> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> >> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
> >> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
> >> operation?
> >> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the establishment
> >> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
> >
> >I believe they are wrong.
>
> And your data is where?


Hiya LP. Now you know it would be a waste of my time to tell you, because
you don't have the brains to understand it anyway, if you did you wouldn't
ask such a stupid question, you would have already read all the Data, not
just what your left wing wackos say.


>
>
> >They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
> >far more likely cause.
>
> No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current
warming.

Who is this mysterious 'we" that pops up in every post you make. Don't
bother answering, it would just be another of your lies.

>
>
> > WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
> >temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating
(think
> >seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
behind
> >global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
> >
> >

There's been a Ice Age soon theory for most of this century... not a
recent claim at all.

http://www.iceagenow.com



"Dori Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3fc23e5e$0$7012$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
> Unfortunately my memory is patchy about WHO (not the UN WHO...) made the
> claims, but I seem to remember scare stories in my student days (the
> seventies) about global cooling, some emanating from quite respectable
> sources.
>
> I just had a quick look at the Club of Rome website archive, but it
doesn't
> seem to have been them.
>
> DAS
> --
> ---
> NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bpldff$njr$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> [..........]
> > Lie. No group said that.
>
>

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> >I have no respect for most of the high profile environmentalist. They
> >preach conservation while flying around in private jets and riding to
> >events in limos. It often seems that they feel everyone else needs to
> >conserve. I'd love to match up the Sierra Club membership list with the
> >vehicle registration lists to see how many Sierra Club members are
> >driving SUVs.
> >
> >Ed
> That would be interesting. Like how many Republicans have family members
> who've had abortions, or are gay.

While you are at it, figure out how many are hooked on prescription pain
relievers.

Ed

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:32:52 -0000, "Dori Schmetterling"
<ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote:

>Nuclear power is not the answer, unfortunately. In Britain in the
>fifties/sixties it was promoted as the ultimate source of cheap power, but
>we have had nothing of the sort; it was just a chimera. The company that
>was left with the nuclear power stations after privatisation needs large
>state subsidies just to keep going. And we can't close it down because we
>don't what to do with the nuclear materials. All European countries (except
>maybe France) have put nuclear power on hold or have decided against it.

But not for technical reasons.
>
>Not only can accidents happen in the west (Three Mile Island, among others),
>there are huge issues of waste disposal. AFAIK, no waste from UK nuclear
>reactors has been permanently stored anywhere. And when does nuclear
>material with a half-life of centuries finally degrade into harmless
>components?

As I said, the problems were not with the technology, but with the
people.
Storage isn't the problem the ecos make it out to be. They simply
refuse to accept that it can be stored under *any* conditions.
It's really funny to hear them put forth a scenario where the
containment would fail, but the scenario would mean catastrophe so bad
that local release of radioactivity would be a minor concern.
>
>I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first opponents of
>wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame them?), but
>nuclear power is not, either.

But it *is* being used with very few problems.
And at a very competitive price.
With the ecos refusing to allow just about *any* major new generating
plants (especially on the west coast), we really need to find
something; nuclear fits the bill better than fossil-fuel generating
plants.
>
>DAS

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:57:19 -0500, "Joe" <me@privacy.net
(jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:

>"What I don't support is government mandates that stress the economy by
>setting impossible goals for a given technology"
>Unfortunately, sometimes this is the only way to force the improvement in
>the technology... EX. if we forced all new constrution in "sunny cities"
>(cities with x% of sunny days) to have a certain amount of energy generated
>by solar, then the solar technology would advance and the price would drop
>in a few years.

Would it?
Did mandating auto insurance drop the prices? No, it instead created a
mandated market.
Offering some sort of enducement (like a tax break) would be more
likely to produce reduced prices.
Except it was tried in Arizona, and it didn't work, because the
technology couldn't advance to the point of actually making it
worthwhile.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:ul27sv0h9m5tvs0pso07urlngrlj1hgi9d@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:57:19 -0500, "Joe" <me@privacy.net
> (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>
> >"What I don't support is government mandates that stress the economy by
> >setting impossible goals for a given technology"
> >Unfortunately, sometimes this is the only way to force the improvement in
> >the technology... EX. if we forced all new constrution in "sunny cities"
> >(cities with x% of sunny days) to have a certain amount of energy
generated
> >by solar, then the solar technology would advance and the price would
drop
> >in a few years.
>
> Would it?
> Did mandating auto insurance drop the prices? No, it instead created a
> mandated market.
> Offering some sort of enducement (like a tax break) would be more
> likely to produce reduced prices.

I'm not convinced that even tax breaks would decrease the price of
insurance. In fact, it would likely increase it's price. There exists a
certain demand for insurance and while tax breaks may bring in a few
otherwise non participators, what it will mostly do is make current
purchasers willing to pay higher prices to the tune of the amount of the tax
break. Throwing money into the equation without much change in supply or
demand will just cause an inflationary effect.

This happened years ago during the Carter years when the govt offered tax
breaks for solar water heating systems. All of a sudden you saw door to
door salesman pitching solar water heating systems for much higher prices
than before. The tax break was a big part of the pitch.

CAFE laws mandated mpg standards. Did it have the desired effect? Not
really. The demand for big, powerful cars found a way around CAFE in SUV's.

Increasing the demand for solar artificially via mandate probably wouldn't
work. Oil just isn't as dangerous as the extremist environmentalists say it
is. If it was or if there were an acceptable replacement technology, then
the market would sufficiently demand a replacement for oil. And we'd find
it.


> Except it was tried in Arizona, and it didn't work, because the
> technology couldn't advance to the point of actually making it
> worthwhile.
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"

Brent P wrote:
> In article <lQuwb.8682$t01.1922@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
>
>>The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
>>fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
>
>
> Properly placed large scale wind farms can take some of that load or
> in the very least make enough energy so that new fossil fuel plants
> need not built.
>


Yes, but what happens when we have all of these wind farms and reduce
the total "wind energy" out there. This is no joke! The total amount
of energy in the world is finite. If we convert wind energy to
electricity on a global scale, what are the global implications? I
don't think we have to worry for a while, but we should consider it!


Dan

Robert A. Matern wrote:
> There's been a Ice Age soon theory for most of this century... not a
> recent claim at all.
>
> http://www.iceagenow.com
>
>
>

In "real" terms, SOON could mean that your grandchildren's grandchildren
wont have to worry about it, but that doesn't mean we should go
hell-bent-for-leather without a care for what we might be doing to the
world.

Dan

See below. My replies also apply to similar points put by some other
posters.

I am not saying that I have any pat answers for future sources of energy,
but I am implying that there is no single definite answer at present.

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hjvwb.294485$Tr4.929288@attbi_s03...
> In article <3fc2409e$0$7007$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>, Dori
Schmetterling wrote:
> > Nuclear power is not the answer, unfortunately. In Britain in the
> > fifties/sixties it was promoted as the ultimate source of cheap power,
but
> > we have had nothing of the sort; it was just a chimera. The company
that
> > was left with the nuclear power stations after privatisation needs large
> > state subsidies just to keep going. And we can't close it down because
we
> > don't what to do with the nuclear materials. All European countries
(except
> > maybe France) have put nuclear power on hold or have decided against it.
> >
> > Not only can accidents happen in the west (Three Mile Island, among
others),
> > there are huge issues of waste disposal. AFAIK, no waste from UK
nuclear
> > reactors has been permanently stored anywhere. And when does nuclear
> > material with a half-life of centuries finally degrade into harmless
> > components?
>
>
> So you base your fears on 1/4 century or older technology.

FROM DAS: At the time nuclear power was touted as THE way to go. I was
really quite in favour as I thought much of the criticism overblown and only
used by politicians to curry favour with voters. Hindsight is 20/20 vision
and irrelevant. We cannot foresee what other consequences nuclear power
stations can have. It is, I believe, naive to think that because we have
moved on that a Three Mile Island could never happen again. Of course it
could, because human error can happen again. We have had incidents in
western Europe, too, AFAIK.
Do you think that the Bhopal disaster could not happen again? (Toxic
chemical leak at a Dow plant in India.) It certainly was not the intention
of Dow or a lack of safety rules that caused it, but the negligent atitude
of one or two workers locally.


>
> If CO2 is as big of a problem as we are told it is, radioactive waste
> is but a tiny fraction as bad. If CO2 is really that bad, then nukes
> are one way to go to a less damaging source of energy. Coal plants
> actually spew more radioactive materials than nuclear plants.

FROM DAS: I am not sure that CO2 is such a big problem, considering that
every night huge amounts of the gas are released by plants...

I am not talking about the waste 'spewed' out during operation, but the
waste product left after processing. You have to answer the question of
what is to be done with radioactive material that has a half-life of
centuries.

Most location proposals for bury the stuff are not implemented because the
ground is not geologically stable. Leakage into ground water would be the
result. What a legacy to leave our grandchildren!

>
> > I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first
opponents of
> > wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame them?), but
> > nuclear power is not, either.
>
> With the those politically on the left and environmentialists opposing
> large scale wind farms proposed by various developers who see wind
> turbines as a money maker that can provide clean energy they show their
> true stripes. They want to control how people live, and abundant clean
> energy threatens that goal.

FROM DAS: Wind farms can be a blot in the landscape. They may be ok in the
Mid-Western prairies when used to power the needs of a few hundred thousand
people, but I can't see them being built in northern New Jersey or the
suburbs of Paris to meet the needs of conurbations containing millions of
people.

Brent P wrote:
> In article <BrGdnRgZ_s4ZIV6i4p2dnA@magma.ca>, Dan Gates wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article <lQuwb.8682$t01.1922@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
>>>>fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
>>>
>>>
>>>Properly placed large scale wind farms can take some of that load or
>>>in the very least make enough energy so that new fossil fuel plants
>>>need not built.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Yes, but what happens when we have all of these wind farms and reduce
>>the total "wind energy" out there. This is no joke! The total amount
>>of energy in the world is finite. If we convert wind energy to
>>electricity on a global scale, what are the global implications? I
>>don't think we have to worry for a while, but we should consider it!
>
>
> That's exactly the sort of arguement I would expect to see from
> anti-energy environmentalists eventually. It's also along the same
> lines of ones I have used when various energy generation methods
> are considered totally without side effects to the environment.
>
> There is some side effect to all forms, all forms can be opposed
> on that ground. Some are cleaner than others, some problems are more
> livable than others. And I find it amusing the way the objections
> shift depending on the method proposed to generate electricity.
>
> Can't build a coal plant because of the pollution and CO2, can't build
> a nuke because of the waste and what might happen if 4 layers of
> redundant systems go bad and homer simpson is at the controls, can't
> build a wind farm because it's ugly and some birds will run into it,
> can't build a dam because it floods a local ecosystem, etc and so on.
>
> Adding up all these objections gets us the status quo. But then the
> status quo is attacked in that people are using too much energy. I
> ask myself what the goal is. And it's quite clear to me the goal
> has *NOTHING* to do with conservation or the environment. The
> environment is but the excuse to achieve other goals.
>
> IMO, if someone completed Tesla's work next week and we all had free
> electricity from the 'ether' there would still be environmental
> objections to the process.


I didn't put this out there to say "DON'T DO IT". The company I work
for is does this kind of work. I think that it is a great source of
electricity. I just think it is something we have to examine and have
some knowledge of before we get too deep.

Dan

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:16:29 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>
>"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
>news:ul27sv0h9m5tvs0pso07urlngrlj1hgi9d@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:57:19 -0500, "Joe" <me@privacy.net
>> (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>>
>> >"What I don't support is government mandates that stress the economy by
>> >setting impossible goals for a given technology"
>> >Unfortunately, sometimes this is the only way to force the improvement in
>> >the technology... EX. if we forced all new constrution in "sunny cities"
>> >(cities with x% of sunny days) to have a certain amount of energy
>generated
>> >by solar, then the solar technology would advance and the price would
>drop
>> >in a few years.
>>
>> Would it?
>> Did mandating auto insurance drop the prices? No, it instead created a
>> mandated market.
>> Offering some sort of enducement (like a tax break) would be more
>> likely to produce reduced prices.
>
>I'm not convinced that even tax breaks would decrease the price of
>insurance. In fact, it would likely increase it's price. There exists a
>certain demand for insurance and while tax breaks may bring in a few
>otherwise non participators, what it will mostly do is make current
>purchasers willing to pay higher prices to the tune of the amount of the tax
>break. Throwing money into the equation without much change in supply or
>demand will just cause an inflationary effect.

The tax break I was referring to was for solar power devices.
Sorry I wasn't clearer on that.
>
>This happened years ago during the Carter years when the govt offered tax
>breaks for solar water heating systems. All of a sudden you saw door to
>door salesman pitching solar water heating systems for much higher prices
>than before. The tax break was a big part of the pitch.
>
>CAFE laws mandated mpg standards. Did it have the desired effect? Not
>really. The demand for big, powerful cars found a way around CAFE in SUV's.
>
>Increasing the demand for solar artificially via mandate probably wouldn't
>work. Oil just isn't as dangerous as the extremist environmentalists say it
>is. If it was or if there were an acceptable replacement technology, then
>the market would sufficiently demand a replacement for oil. And we'd find
>it.
>
>
>> Except it was tried in Arizona, and it didn't work, because the
>> technology couldn't advance to the point of actually making it
>> worthwhile.
>> --
>> Bill Funk
>> replace "g" with "a"
>

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<3np1sv414jbra53mffq0f4m0r9pjho31g9@4ax.com>...
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:31:46 -0700, "Jerry McG"
> <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>
> >> It's not a case of developing new energy technologies. I really wish it
> >were that simple. The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being
> >used to develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
> >these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away. What is
> >constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil fuels, with no
> >actual replacement technologies available. Obviously, this will cause a
> >major change in almost every aspect of our lifestyles.<
> >
> >Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle east,
> >if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
> >large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track. Radical environmentalists
> >have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
> >technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
> >answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor is
> >space available to deploy huge solar collectors.
> >
> >Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient, and
> >replacement of the internal combustion engine with fuel cells is not even in
> >the Model-T stages of development. Therefore, unless humanity is willing to
> >accept a massive economic upheaval conversion a slow conversion using bridge
> >technologies such as hybrids is the only viable path to follow. Naturally
> >the fanciful enviros will whine....
> >
> Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
> who screw up, not the technology).
> Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.

Well, since we agree that people screw it up by making mistakes and
errors of judgement in the design or operation, I'll certainly listen
if you can come up with a way to have nuclear power implemented by
somebody other than people. However, I should warn you that training
chimps to run the plants will not be acceptable either. I was thinking
more of Vorlons or maybe Vulcans.

"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:<8T6wb.9987$Gj.1947@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b5b4685f.0311220857.5c6200cf@posting.google.com...
> > Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
> news:<olesrvsl6emilb2rgfbes8n605i91jdluj@4ax.com>...
> > > >>>> >To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure
> is worse than
> > > >>>> >the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
> case is being
> > > >>>> >dramatically overstated.
> >
> > I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
> > it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
> > billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
> > conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
> > fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
> > dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
> > cities as the ocean rises.
> >
>
> You've got conservatives all wrong then. Part of the reason conservatives
> tend towards opposing the global warming crowd is who that crowd is and what
> their aims are. Headline environmentalism has transformed over the last
> decade or so into an extremist and anti-capitalist point of view. Whatever
> the facts are regarding global warming, the extreme view pulls into it's
> agenda the shift of power from capitalism towards socialism.

And I suppose that if the 'environmentalists' advised against jumping
off the roof, the good conservatives would all dutifully line up to do
so?
The trouble with this whole mess is the media/public's propensity to
cast *everything* into a contest between two equivalently valid
opponents, pick one on the basis of some emotional impulse.
Environmentalism vs. corporatism, prolife vs prochoice, evolutionism
vs creationism, proBush vs. proSaddam, all are treated the same as the
choice of RedSox vs. Yankees. In fact, contrary to the news headlines
the other week, the decision to drop enforcement of the Clean Air laws
is not a 'blow to environmentalists'; it is, in fact, a blow to all
air-breathing organisms in the US.

> We have a fossil fueled based economy. Someday it will change and thank
> goodness for it too, but, God willing, it won't be on the extremist
> environmentalist schedule or terms.

Yes, as the decisions made regarding fish harvesting limits were not
made on the 'extremist environmentalist' (aka scientist) schedule or
terms, instead splitting the difference between the numbers the
scientists said were the max that would not seriously deplete the
fishery stocks, and the numbers the fishing industry said were
necessary economically. That's the American way, isn't it; compromist
between the two sides. And the result is, of course, that the
fisheries are now overfished, and the industry is in worse shape than
it would have been if the scientists' recommendations had been
followed in the first place.

tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<2x8wb.285619$Tr4.884523@attbi_s03>...
> In article <3np1sv414jbra53mffq0f4m0r9pjho31g9@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
>
> > Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
> > who screw up, not the technology).
> > Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
>
> And that's what I find puzzling. If CO2 is such an important problem,
> the what-we-can-do-today answer is state of the art nuclear power. (not
> stone age state run without protection like the old soviet plants)
>
> We are told consistantly that CO2 is a problem, but somehow the
> solutions always boil down to telling people how they have to live,
> bring wealth to the 3rd world, and other political and social issues
> rather than *SOLVING* the stated problem of too much CO2 being released
> and meeting energy demands / increasing energy efficency.

Yes, having seen that allowing large corporations remarkably free rein
to seek, extract, and sell unreplenishable fossil fuel energy sources
through a centralized structure in order to maximize corporate
profitability, which also creates a monetary penalty for the
corporations to concentrate on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
safety; clearly the way to go is to transition to another
unreplenishable source to be sought, extracted, and sold through a
centralized structure run by large corporations with a monetary
penalty for concentration on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
safety.