mwm@ea.UUCP (04/28/84)
#R:azure:-271800:ea:10100043:000:859 ea!mwm Apr 28 12:34:00 1984 /***** ea:net.politics / azure!jonw / 7:28 am Apr 25, 1984 */ Since T.C. never even mentioned conservation in his article, I am left with the impression that he (and probably most other folks) don't really consider conservation an energy source. Not only is it an energy source, but it has the potential to make a larger contribution than any single form of energy that exists today and to make that contribution in much less time than it takes to build new nuclear plants or even coal-fired plants. Jon White [decvax|ucbvax]!tektronix!tekmdp!azure!jonw /* ---------- */ Conservation is a lot like taxation: a little bit can be good for you, but it quite easily gets out of hand. We've already made the mistake of basing a large part of our national economy on one; I'm scared of what could happen if we got the other one into the act. <mike
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (04/29/84)
#R:azure:-271800:uokvax:5000087:000:805 uokvax!emjej Apr 29 13:48:00 1984 /***** uokvax:net.politics / azure!jonw / 7:28 am Apr 25, 1984 */ The case for conservation and the reasons why it has not yet caught on to the extent that it should in this country is a fairly complex issue that I don't want to get into here. What I will do is mention what a few examples to give you an idea of what is possible. Conservation is a very significant, but all to often ignored, energy source... /* ---------- */ And people are starting to see the secondary effects of conservation already, what with people breathing various obnoxious things given off by insulation and sealed in their energy-efficient houses. All choices have side effects, not just the ones that the media have fun scaring people with. Let us use the same yardstick in comparing safety, please. James Jones
barry@ames-lm.UUCP (05/04/84)
[]
Jon White, a question for you (and for anyone else still flaming
at nuclear power): why beat a dead horse? Haven't you noticed that the
anti-nuclear-power movement has already succeeded? The last nuclear
plant under construction in this country (Seabrook) has been halted for
lack of $$, and the utility company is planning to declare bankruptcy.
I know of no new starts planned.
I think some of the credit for this 'victory' (I'm somewhat
pro-nuke, myself, but I know when I'm licked) must go to the
conservation efforts which reduced this country's energy usage to well
under the levels planned for by the utilities; but the anti-nuclear
movement was probably the main cause for the present morass of
unwieldy and contradictory regulations under which nuclear plants
have to be constructed. Ain't nobody gonna try and build nuclear plants
the way things are now.
I'm sure you consider the victory incomplete, since there are
still fission reactors in use, but they'll wear out soon enough. Besides,
compromise is the name of the game in politics; rhetoric aside, you
hardly expected 100% success, did you?
So why don't we debate a topic with some current relevance?
Nuclear WEAPONS are still a live issue, and they're surely far more
dangerous than power plants. If energy is your thing, how about some
*new* ideas? We've eliminated coal (too dirty) and fission (politically
unacceptable), but this country still lacks a coherent energy policy.
I have seen no mention in this debate of ocean-thermal energy, fusion,
solar power satellites, geopressure zones (natural gas)... make your
own list.
There's more I could add, but I'd better go pedal my generator
before my terminal goes dead :-).
"The opinions expressed herein are my own foolishness, and do not
necessarily reflect the views of anyone that matters."
Kenn Barry
NASA-Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Avenue: {dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames-lm!barry