todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) (10/30/85)
> The only feasible alternatives to oil are natural gas, coal, and atomic energy How about a little bit of conservation? > Of the three, coal is very dirty and natural gas suffers from > transportation difficulties. > Fission energy is here right now, is competitive with oil in price/kw-hr, I think fission power is becoming less and less of a bargain. You say,"That's because all you worrywarts are regulating it death!" > and is very clean... You mean it is very clean unless it becomes very, very dirty. > but is politically incorrect, for some reason I've never been able to fathom. How about this reason: Nuclear power plants cannot be insured through conventional routes, i.e., insurance companies set insurance rates so high that nuclear power becomes prohibitively expensive. Do the power companies listen to the advice of people who are professional odds makers? Noooo. Instead of realizing it is not cost-efficient (when you calculate the possibility of and cost of system failure), the politicians decided to let the power companies distribute the costs of failure to all American power consumers. This means I am paying (through Duke Power Company) for the clean-up of the "incident" at TMI, even though I have no voice in General Municipal Utilities actions. Any sane observer will admit that the "incident" was miniscule compared to the level of potential catastrophe. I am not a blanket anti-nuker. I think it should be implemented, but not in any way like the American power companies are pursuing it. American utilities, politicians and electricity consumers are not being realistic regarding the costs of nuclear power. In addition to the above mentioned shared clean-up costs, we are not being realistic about: waste storage. I believe we are technologically able (probably) to safely store wastes, but there are too many horror stories about unsafe disposal practices, hundreds of pounds of unaccounted for wastes, including weapons grade plutonium. The technological requirements for creating a storage system that can withstand the ravages of tens of thousands of years of time are boggling. We are giving our children (and grandchildren, etc...) a poisonous legacy, generated to fuel an economic system that will be hilariously inefficient and crude to them. cost of total failure. In the event of a meltdown (a real possibility by anyone's reckoning) the consequences will range from catastrophic to cataclysmic, depending on who you talk to. When you consider the price, is it worth it? > Perhaps some of the groups that are opposed to our > current buildup should redirect their energies to > ending political restrictions on the development of fission power. > Rick. I'll be the first to admit that coal power is poisonous and crude. What we need is research (I don't care who funds it, really) on renewable energy sources. Why can't we push solar more? It wouldn't have anything to do with power companies fear's of decentralized power sources would it? Nah! The French have taken the most realistic approach to implementing fission power. They have standardized all their plants, so that each plant is an improvement on its predecessor. Obviously the French have more at stake than we do, as they get something close to 70% their electron juice from nukes, we get less than 20. Our power companies each throw together their own kludge reactors, most of which are clumsy, large scale versions of Rickover's nuclear sub reactors, each of which has its own bugs and ideosyncracies (many of which don't reveal themselves until it's too late. I talk to my old red neck high school buddies who work on the Shearon-Harris nuclear power plant near Raleigh, NC. They get high or drunk nearly everyday, they fudge inspection report forms, they have a good old time putting together a device that requires significant amounts of energy and control just to keep from exploding. BTW, if you're wondering how they pass urinalysis tests- they bring clean samples everyday from a non-drug-using friend or SO. I don't feel too confident. Maybe Fusion power will liberate us all from this dilemna, maybe decentralized power (solar, wind, cow manure *8-}, etc...) will be the answer. Until we have a clear answer, we must conserve, use clean power (hydroelectric, domestic natural gas), and put a lot of resources into energy research, especially fusion and solar. ||||||| Mommy, help! ||/ \|| / [ O-O ]/ Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | O | |___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) (11/02/85)
In article <528@scirtp.UUCP> todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) writes: >> The only feasible alternatives to oil are natural gas, coal, and atomic energy > >How about a little bit of conservation? > >> Of the three, coal is very dirty and natural gas suffers from >> transportation difficulties. >> Fission energy is here right now, is competitive with oil in price/kw-hr, > >I think fission power is becoming less and less of a bargain. >You say,"That's because all you worrywarts are regulating it death!" That's exactly it. Groups that claim fission power is unsafe have induced the creation of extremely stringent regulations, and then used the catch-22 that it costs too much, said costs being largely caused by the regulations they helped get passed. >> and is very clean... > >You mean it is very clean unless it becomes very, very dirty. ANYTHING is clean unless it's dirty. Also, my room is light unless it's dark, and it seems to be rather quiet, unless it's noisy. The question is, is it actually clean or dirty, and the answer is clean. >> but is politically incorrect, for some reason I've never been able to fathom. > > ... > > waste storage. I believe we are technologically able (probably) to > safely store wastes, but there are too many horror stories about > unsafe disposal practices, Are these "stories" true or not? References? > hundreds of pounds of unaccounted for > wastes, including weapons grade plutonium. Power reactors do not produce weapons-grade plutonium. Research reactors do, but the argument is about nuclear power, not reactors used for other purposes. > The technological > requirements for creating a storage system that can withstand the > ravages of tens of thousands of years of time are boggling. Wait a minute--didn't the uranium stay in the ground that long? Didn't salt mines? Besides, there are many substances we obtain that last longer than tens of thousands of years, and that you don't seem particularly worried about. (i.e. arsenic). Also note that producing an amount of power from coal releases radioactivity into the air (every substance contains small amounts of radioactive materials, and you need a lot more coal to produce the same amount of power than you do uranium). This radioactivity also lasts "tens of thousands of years". > We are giving our children (and grandchildren, etc...) a poisonous > legacy, generated to fuel an economic system that will be hilariously > inefficient and crude to them. > > cost of total failure. In the event of a meltdown (a real possibility > by anyone's reckoning) the consequences will range from catastrophic > to cataclysmic, depending on who you talk to. When you consider the > price, is it worth it? Yes, a meltdown would result in a real catastrophe. So would bursting of a dam. So would an accident at a non-nuclear plant. But we accept these risks. >> Perhaps some of the groups that are opposed to our >> current buildup should redirect their energies to >> ending political restrictions on the development of fission power. >> Rick. > >I'll be the first to admit that coal power is poisonous and crude. >What we need is research (I don't care who funds it, really) on >renewable energy sources. Why can't we push solar more? It wouldn't have >anything to do with power companies fear's of decentralized power >sources would it? Nah! > >The French have taken the most realistic approach to implementing >fission power. They have standardized all their plants, so that >each plant is an improvement on its predecessor. Obviously the French >have more at stake than we do, as they get something close to 70% their >electron juice from nukes, we get less than 20. Our power companies >each throw together their own kludge reactors, most of which are >clumsy, large scale versions of Rickover's nuclear sub reactors, >each of which has its own bugs and ideosyncracies (many of which >don't reveal themselves until it's too late. > >I talk to my old red neck high school buddies who work on the >Shearon-Harris nuclear power plant near Raleigh, NC. They get >high or drunk nearly everyday, they fudge inspection report >forms, they have a good old time putting together a device >that requires significant amounts of energy and control just >to keep from exploding. Oh no, not the "exploding nuclear reactor" hoax again! A nuclear reactor can't explode like a bomb. It can have an ordinary steam explosion, but such an explosion would cause no more damage than from a steam explosion at any other type of plant. And I doubt that faking reports, getting high or drunk, etc... is limited to nuclear plants. Anyway, it isn't true that a reactor "requires significant amounts of energy and control just to keep from exploding". The safeguards are such that a complete loss of control would be extremely unlikely to result in an explosion. Not even Three Mile Island exploded. >BTW, if you're wondering how they pass >urinalysis tests- they bring clean samples everyday from a >non-drug-using friend or SO. I don't feel too confident. > >Maybe Fusion power will liberate us all from this dilemna, maybe >decentralized power (solar, wind, cow manure *8-}, etc...) will >be the answer. Until we have a clear answer, we must conserve, >use clean power (hydroelectric, domestic natural gas), and put >a lot of resources into energy research, especially fusion and >solar. > Todd Jones -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- If you know the alphabet up to 'k', you can teach it up to 'k'. Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa
todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) (11/07/85)
me = > > > In article <528@scirtp.UUCP> todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) writes: > >> The only feasible alternatives to oil are natural gas, coal, and > >> atomic energy > > > >How about a little bit of conservation? > > > >> Of the three, coal is very dirty and natural gas suffers from > >> transportation difficulties. > >> Fission energy is here right now, is competitive with oil in price/kw-hr, > > > >I think fission power is becoming less and less of a bargain. > >You say,"That's because all you worrywarts are regulating it death!" > > That's exactly it. Groups that claim fission power is unsafe have induced the > creation of extremely stringent regulations, and then used the catch-22 > that it costs too much, said costs being largely caused by the regulations > they helped get passed. Don't ignore the uninsurability argument: Before regulations became "stifling" nuclear power plants were unable to buy affordable insurance to cover post-catastrophe injury claims. Most capitalists would see this as a signal that the risks outweigh the benefits. Power companies simply railroaded legislation that made *all* power companies equally liable for accidents. > > >> and is very clean... > > > >You mean it is very clean unless it becomes very, very dirty. e.g. wastes, meltdowns. > ANYTHING is clean unless it's dirty. Also, my room is light unless it's > dark, and it seems to be rather quiet, unless it's noisy. The question is, > is it actually clean or dirty, and the answer is clean. > >> but is politically incorrect, for some reason I've never been able to fathom. > > waste storage. I believe we are technologically able (probably) to > > safely store wastes, but there are too many horror stories about > > unsafe disposal practices, > > hundreds of pounds of unaccounted for > > wastes, including weapons grade plutonium. > > Power reactors do not produce weapons-grade plutonium. Research reactors do, And breeder reactors do. Fission reactors produce wastes that can be refined to weapons-grade plutonium. > but the argument is about nuclear power, not reactors used for other purposes. > > > The technological > > requirements for creating a storage system that can withstand the > > ravages of tens of thousands of years of time are boggling. > > Wait a minute--didn't the uranium stay in the ground that long? Not enriched uranium, which is far more toxic than uranium ore. > Didn't salt > mines? Besides, there are many substances we obtain that last longer than > tens of thousands of years, and that you don't seem particularly worried > about. (i.e. arsenic). How did you find out that I am a pro-arsenic kind-of-guy? *8-}. > Also note that producing an amount of power from > coal releases radioactivity into the air (every substance contains small > amounts of radioactive materials, and you need a lot more coal to produce > the same amount of power than you do uranium). This radioactivity also lasts > "tens of thousands of years". If you read my original posting you'll find many damning statements on coal. > > We are giving our children (and grandchildren, etc...) a poisonous > > legacy, generated to fuel an economic system that will be hilariously > > inefficient and crude to them. > > > > cost of total failure. In the event of a meltdown (a real possibility > > by anyone's reckoning) the consequences will range from catastrophic > > to cataclysmic, depending on who you talk to. When you consider the > > price, is it worth it? > > Yes, a meltdown would result in a real catastrophe. So would bursting of > a dam. So would an accident at a non-nuclear plant. But we accept these > risks. The risk of a bursting dam is calculable. The risk of an accident in a non-nuclear plant is calculable. There is no clear idea of what would happen in the event of a meltdown, but the most modest expectations greatly exceed the destructive power of a burst dam or non-nuclear plant explosion. > >> Perhaps some of the groups that are opposed to our > >> current buildup should redirect their energies to > >> ending political restrictions on the development of fission power. > >> Rick. > > > >I'll be the first to admit that coal power is poisonous and crude. > >What we need is research (I don't care who funds it, really) on > >renewable energy sources. Why can't we push solar more? It wouldn't have > >anything to do with power companies fear's of decentralized power > >sources would it? Nah! > > > >The French have taken the most realistic approach to implementing > >fission power. They have standardized all their plants, so that > >each plant is an improvement on its predecessor. Obviously the French > >have more at stake than we do, as they get something close to 70% their > >electron juice from nukes, we get less than 20. Our power companies > >each throw together their own kludge reactors, most of which are > >clumsy, large scale versions of Rickover's nuclear sub reactors, > >each of which has its own bugs and ideosyncracies (many of which > >don't reveal themselves until it's too late. > > > >I talk to my old red neck high school buddies who work on the > >Shearon-Harris nuclear power plant near Raleigh, NC. They get > >high or drunk nearly everyday, they fudge inspection report > >forms, they have a good old time putting together a device > >that requires significant amounts of energy and control just > >to keep from exploding. > > Oh no, not the "exploding nuclear reactor" hoax again! A nuclear reactor > can't explode like a bomb. It is theorized, anyway. > It can have an ordinary steam explosion, but > such an explosion would cause no more damage than from a steam explosion > at any other type of plant. And I doubt that faking reports, getting high > or drunk, etc... is limited to nuclear plants. You are right, it isn't. But the consequences are far graver. > Anyway, it isn't > true that a reactor "requires significant amounts of energy and control > just to keep from exploding". The safeguards are such that a complete What is a safeguard in a nuclear plant setting if it isn't a sophisticated system requiring significant amounts of energy and control? > loss of control would be extremely unlikely to result in an explosion. If you cannot maintain proper placement of boron control rods in a reacting mass, the reacting mass becomes so hot, the containment chamber can no longer contain the mass. If you cannot control the emergency cooling levels in such an emergency, the mass melts through the reactor and heads (theoretically) to the water table. At this point experts tend to disagree on the level of ensuing disaster. > Not even Three Mile Island exploded. From what I understand, TMI came very close to not being cooled by the emergency cooling water. Despite its containment, it has affected my power bill. > >BTW, if you're wondering how they pass > >urinalysis tests- they bring clean samples everyday from a > >non-drug-using friend or SO. I don't feel too confident. > > > >Maybe Fusion power will liberate us all from this dilemna, maybe > >decentralized power (solar, wind, cow manure *8-}, etc...) will > >be the answer. Until we have a clear answer, we must conserve, > >use clean power (hydroelectric, domestic natural gas), and put > >a lot of resources into energy research, especially fusion and > >solar. > > Todd Jones > Kenneth Arromdee As I have stated, I am not a strict no-nuker, I just believe that Americans are not being realistic about the risks of nuclear power and are not making informed choices. -todd jones
mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) (11/10/85)
In article <528@scirtp.UUCP> todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) writes: > cost of total failure. In the event of a meltdown (a real possibility > by anyone's reckoning) the consequences will range from catastrophic > to cataclysmic, depending on who you talk to. When you consider the > price, is it worth it? A meltdown in a commercial reactor has never occured and if one were to occur there are many indications that the results would be mild compared to problems with other power sources. The Rasmussen report put the number of lost lives due to loss-of-collant accidents (if there ever was one) at an average of less then *1* person. Yet there are hydroelectric dams in California where it is estimated that a disaster could kill hundred of thousands of people. The best example of the inherent safety of nuclear power over other forms of power was the accident at Three Mile Island. As Petr Beckmann writes in "The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear" "Within hours from the begining of the accident [Hours? How long does it take for an oil tanker to blow up?], the industry had flown in teams of experts; one such team engaged in almost Naderite 'what if' fantasies. What if the pump now slowly cooling the core fails? We use the primary loop. What if that fails, too? We still have the ECCS. What if both loops fail because the power fails? We still have a diesel stand-by generator. What if that fails, too? Let's fly in another, just in case. And they did. (It was never needed.) What 843 MW facility, other than nuclear, gives you that kind of time to take countermeasures? What other 843 MW facility will contain a chain of five independent, horrible failures - human and mechanical - without the loss of a single life? How do you evacuate the population when a dam breaks? How do you take preventive measures while a gas refinery blows up?" >Maybe Fusion power will liberate us all from this dilemna, maybe >decentralized power (solar, wind, cow manure *8-}, etc...) will >be the answer. Until we have a clear answer, we must conserve, >use clean power (hydroelectric, domestic natural gas), and put >a lot of resources into energy research, especially fusion and >solar. > Todd Jones The important thing to remember about solar, wind, cow manure etc. is that at best they are only a *supplementary* form of power. The energy available is not anywhere near what our society needs to survive. For the foreseeable future coal and nuclear are the only choices and coal is far dirtier and produces millions of times more wastes. -- Michael V. Stein Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services UUCP ihnp4!dicomed!meccts!mvs
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) (11/11/85)
In article <542@scirtp.UUCP> todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) writes: >> >> The only feasible alternatives to oil are natural gas, coal, and >> >> atomic energy >> >How about a little bit of conservation? >> >> Of the three, coal is very dirty and natural gas suffers from >> >> transportation difficulties. >> >> Fission energy is here right now, is competitive with oil in price/kw-hr, >> >I think fission power is becoming less and less of a bargain. >> >You say,"That's because all you worrywarts are regulating it death!" >> That's exactly it. Groups that claim fission power is unsafe have induced the >> creation of extremely stringent regulations, and then used the catch-22 >> that it costs too much, said costs being largely caused by the regulations >> they helped get passed. >Don't ignore the uninsurability argument: > <claim that pre-regulation plants couldn't get insurance deleted> Sources, please? >> >> and is very clean... >> >You mean it is very clean unless it becomes very, very dirty. >e.g. wastes, meltdowns. I KNOW what you mean. I am just pointing out below that "very clean unless very, very dirty" is meaningless. >> ANYTHING is clean unless it's dirty. Also, my room is light unless it's >> dark, and it seems to be rather quiet, unless it's noisy. The question is, >> is it actually clean or dirty, and the answer is clean. >> >> but is politically incorrect, for some reason I've never been able to fathom. >> > waste storage. I believe we are technologically able (probably) to >> > safely store wastes, but there are too many horror stories about >> > unsafe disposal practices, hundreds of pounds of unaccounted for >> > wastes, including weapons grade plutonium. >> Power reactors do not produce weapons-grade plutonium. Research reactors do >And breeder reactors do. Fission reactors produce wastes that can be refined >to weapons-grade plutonium. Uranium mines produce ores that can be refined to weapons-grade uranium. So what? >> but the argument is about nuclear power, not reactors used for other purposes. >> > The technological >> > requirements for creating a storage system that can withstand the >> > ravages of tens of thousands of years of time are boggling. >> Wait a minute--didn't the uranium stay in the ground that long? >Not enriched uranium, which is far more toxic than uranium ore. Enriched uranium may be more concentrated, but there isn't anything in it that wasn't in the ore. And as for it being toxic, is anyone going to eat or breathe it, or drink solutions of it? (Actually, I suspect that you really meant to speak of wastes here, not enriched uranium, but I can only respond to what you say.) >> Didn't salt >> mines? Besides, there are many substances we obtain that last longer than >> tens of thousands of years, and that you don't seem particularly worried >> about. (i.e. arsenic). > >How did you find out that I am a pro-arsenic kind-of-guy? *8-}. I didn't. I'm just pointing out that the "tens of thousands of years" statement is a double standard, because it isn't used for substances that last long times if they aren't radioactive. >> Also note that producing an amount of power from coal releases radioac- >>tivity into the air... also lasts "tens of thousands of years". >If you read my original posting you'll find many damning statements on coal. True, but again I was pointing out the double standard of "tens of thousands of years", "we are giving our children and grandchildren, etc..." not being used for materials not generally thought of as radioactive. >> > We are giving our children (and grandchildren, etc...) a poisonous >> > legacy, generated to fuel an economic system that will be hilariously >> > inefficient and crude to them. >> > ... >> > cost of total failure. In the event of a meltdown (a real possibility >> > by anyone's reckoning) the consequences will range from catastrophic >> > to cataclysmic, depending on who you talk to. When you consider the >> > price, is it worth it? >> Yes, a meltdown would result in a real catastrophe. So would bursting of >> a dam. So would an accident at a non-nuclear plant. But we accept these >> risks. >The risk of a bursting dam is calculable. The risk of an accident in a >non-nuclear plant is calculable. There is no clear idea of what would >happen in the event of a meltdown, but the most modest expectations >greatly exceed the destructive power of a burst dam or non-nuclear >plant explosion. From what I have seen, they wouldn't. Furthermore, a meltdown is much less likely than a burst dam or non-nuclear explosion. Also, just because some- thing isn't "calculable" doesn't mean that you don't have an upper bound on its damage. >> >> ending political restrictions on the development of fission power. >> >> Rick. >> >I'll be the first to admit that coal power is poisonous and crude. >> >What we need is research (I don't care who funds it, really) on >> >renewable energy sources. Why can't we push solar more? It wouldn't have >> >anything to do with power companies fear's of decentralized power >> >sources would it? Nah! >> ><examples of French nuclear plants deleted> >> >I talk to my old red neck high school buddies who work on the >> >Shearon-Harris nuclear power plant near Raleigh, NC. They get >> >high or drunk nearly everyday, they fudge inspection report >> >forms, they have a good old time putting together a device >> >that requires significant amounts of energy and control just >> >to keep from exploding. >> Oh no, not the "exploding nuclear reactor" hoax again! A nuclear reactor >> can't explode like a bomb. >It is theorized, anyway. You mean you ARE claiming a nuclear reactor can explode like a bomb? >> It can have an ordinary steam explosion, but >> such an explosion would cause no more damage than from a steam explosion >> at any other type of plant. And I doubt that faking reports, getting high >> or drunk, etc... is limited to nuclear plants. >You are right, it isn't. But the consequences are far graver. >> Anyway, it isn't >> true that a reactor "requires significant amounts of energy and control >> just to keep from exploding". The safeguards are such that a complete >What is a safeguard in a nuclear plant setting if it isn't a sophisticated >system requiring significant amounts of energy and control? I always thought that many safeguards are automatic. I doubt that, for exam- ple, a N-thickness (sorry, but I don't have reference books on hand) steel containment vessel requires large quantities of energy or control to operate. >> loss of control would be extremely unlikely to result in an explosion. >(examples of loss of control deleted) >point experts tend to disagree on the level of ensuing disaster. Again, a disagreement on level doesn't mean either that the maximum level is unknown, or that the likeliness of an accident killing N people, compared (say) to that of a dam breakage killing N people, isn't known. >> Not even Three Mile Island exploded. >From what I understand, TMI came very close to not being cooled by Close doesn't count. The safeguards did work. >> ><examples of cheating workers deleted> >> >Until we have a clear answer, we must conserve, >> >use clean power (hydroelectric, domestic natural gas), and put >> >a lot of resources into energy research, especially fusion and >> >solar. I have never stated that I am against these things, just that I do not consider your arguments against nuclear power valid. >As I have stated, I am not a strict no-nuker, I just believe that >Americans are not being realistic about the risks of nuclear power >and are not making informed choices. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- If you know the alphabet up to 'k', you can teach it up to 'k'. Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (11/14/85)
>As I have stated, I am not a strict no-nuker, I just believe that >Americans are not being realistic about the risks of nuclear power >and are not making informed choices. > >-todd jones Are they (and we) being realistic about the risks of (a) burning fossil carbon, or (b) lacking energy to support the life-style to which we have become accustomed and to which much of the world would like to become accustomed? The primary risk of (a) is dramatic changes in climate and in the way plants grow, since CO2 does not go away on a scale of millions of years once the carbon has been taken from the ground and put into the air. If we burn all the readily accessible fossil fuels, the CO2 in the atmosphere would increase TEN-FOLD, with a possible temperature rise of tens of degrees (more in the high latitudes). All coastal cities would be flooded, as would a substantial portion of the world's land surface. The plants tend to grow more, but less nutritiously, in high CO2 atmospheres (just talking doubling CO2, here, not ten-times increase). I think the risk of (b) is self-evident. Riots and war, probably nuclear war, over the insufficient energy sources. Against these risks (which are far from the only hazards of fossil fule burning), even the worst possible risks of nuclear energy seem pretty small. And yes, conservation IS the best energy "source", but it is hardly likely to ever be enough. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt