Here's the solution!...............NOT :-)
beaverpower
www.beaverpower.com
I'm sorry, I couldn't help it. I found it funny. I like the shirts though.
Jim
On Sunday 11 November 2001 21:10, you wrote:
> I think nuclear energy is an ok way to go for now. You forgot natural
> gas... propane. That's a perfectly viable alternative that is better
> for the environment as well; also, we can create it artificially;
> also, there is at least as much of it available as there is petroleum.
> In the mean time, work on a way to safely use plutonium and/or
> economically use fusion. Infrastructure is not really a big deal....
> people are just scared of change.
>
> --Justin K.
>
> --- Paul M Foster <paulf@quillandmouse.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 02:20:40PM -0800, Justin Keyes wrote:
> > > The bottom line is that we need to switch to alternative energy
> >
> > sources
> >
> > > ASAP. This is a huge achille's heel for our country.
> >
> > Umm, as soon as you find one, let us know. Not one existing, widely
> > known source of energy works as well as petroleum. Don't get me
> > wrong--
> > I agree that petroleum is probably the worst way to power things. I
> > mean, eventually it will run out, if nothing else! But there simply
> > aren't feasible alternatives. Solar cars won't do it. Electric cars
> > make
> > as much pollution at the power plant as gasoline cars do. One
> > possibility is hydrogen or methane. Problem is that there's no
> > infrastructure for it. And changing the existing infrastructure over
> > would take a couple of generations, _if_ everyone agreed that X was
> > the
> > way to go. And the first time a hydrogen car blew up, there would be
> > a
> > public outcry, as people forgot that gasoline cars blow up too.
> >
> > And consider: what if you _did_ have cars whose "pollution" was
> > water?
> > Naturally no one every stops to consider what would happen if you
> > dumped
> > three times the water vapor into the atmosphere as there is now.
> >
> > Wave power endangers ocean life and can only produce limited power at
> > seaside cities. Wind is a dismal failure. The vast wind farms in
> > California really produce very little power, and are only feasible in
> > places where there is a change from sea to land or valley to mountain
> > (good wind areas). Additionally, detritous on the blades severely
> > limits
> > the efficiency of them (recent study on the effect of grim on wind
> > turbine blades). And they're a menace to birds, which create their
> > own
> > kind of grime on them (ick!).
> >
> > If all the tree huggers got together to do alternative energy
> > research
> > rather than complaining about gasoline/coal/oil, we would have solved
> > this problem by now. It amazes me that tycoons the world over spend
> > all
> > this philanthropic money on _name_your_disease_ or gun control, while
> > things like this go unfunded.
> >
> > I say: GO NUCLEAR! (Just kidding-- it's probably the worst
> > alternative
> > of all.)
> >
> > Paul
>
> =====
> /"\ ........................................................
> \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Justin Keyes
> X - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail | m9u35@yahoo.com
> / \ - NO Word docs in e-mail | . .
> \ /
> ,~~~~~~~~ O
> (__________)
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Find a job, post your resume.
> http://careers.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:02:38 EDT