alt.energy.renewable

Benj wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2:54 pm, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>> nada wrote:
>>
>>> Fran, I want to answer "a". What one has to do is have a plan. Without
>>> a plan, it's anarchistic and overly reliant on "market forces", the
>>> biggest bugaboo in serious energy planning. I know you agree with me
>>> here.
>> One Roscoe Bartlett has been pounding the table about our condition for
>> some time. Nothing is happening. We are out of time.
>
> Not quite out of time, but close. The problem is we are not out of
> bullshit which is impeding real answers to real problems.
> There are only two viable energy sources. One is nuclear and the other
> is coal. Both need to be greatly refined but instead money is being
> spend on nonsense like alcohol from corn. Puleeze! It takes MORE oil
> to generate a gallon of corn alcohol than if you just burned the oil!
> Plus you raise the price of food sky high, plus even if you used the
> ENTIRE corn crop to make fuel you'd only cover 7% of the need. How
> STUMP STUPID are you people?

You people? At that, our present challenge is 'liquid' fuels and the
effect it will have on global economies.

> Coal has severe pollution problems (comes out of the ground which
> means lots of nasty minerals etc in there). But it has the advantage
> of putting off disaster for about 300 years. Not forever, but a little
> breathing room. But the serious pollution problems MUST be solved
> first or nobody will be breathing!

The problems have been solved. We just are not applying them. But then,
coal shortages would come next.

> The other viable alternative is to use up all those 50,000 or so
> atomic bombs we have built to destroy the planet and get some
> electricity out of them. Certainly a better idea than WWIII! The only
> serious problem is nuclear waste. Well, mein Fuhrer, I have a plan!
> It's simple. We find a useless spot on the planet. We rope it off. And
> we dump the waste there. Nobody goes near for many thousands of years.
> My vote is for Alabama! [Note the government agrees and already is
> planning nuclear waste disposal there.]

Well, you better get the planned nuclear construction up by something
times a magnitude if it is to have an impact.

http://lakeweb.blogspot.com/