cmm@pixadv.UUCP (cmm) (08/23/84)
<bye bye line> > Conservation has worked well enough already to play hob with the Bonneville > power Administration's demand forecasts (nw US) and eliminate (for many > years) the need for the WppSS nuclear plants - a large factor in the > current brouhaha over the plants. > Jeff Winslow | We seem to be suffering from a problem of different time scales. Bringing a | new power technology on line is a 30+ year proposition. I suspect that | conservation won't buy you *anything* beyond 300-400 years. Unless you're | willing to start cutting back on things, like the population. | <mike 300 to 400 years from a single power source (conservation) is *far* longer than we have been served by oil (inthe absence of conservation). Three centuries is a perfectly acceptable lifespan for conservation to provide us with needed energy, and *should* provide time to develop alternatives. BTW, is there a better newsgroup to maintain this discussion? Net.followup strikes me as being too unspecific (how about net.sci or net.physics?). -- ____________________________________________________________________________ cmm (carl m mikkelsen) | (617)657-8720x2310 Pixel Computer Incorporated | 260 Fordham Road | {allegra|ihnp4|cbosgd|ima|genrad|amd|harvard}\ Wilmington, Ma. 01887 | !wjh12!pixel!pixadv!cmm
gwyn@Brl-Vld.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (08/25/84)
From: Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@Brl-Vld.ARPA> Please move the conservation discussion to net.sci; it appears to have little if anything to do with physics. Thanks.