jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (08/13/84)
>> Well, not really. The "best" new power "source" is: >> C O N S E R V A T I O N. > Yes, but it only works in the *very* short term. My guess would be > that it won't even work long enough to bring a new power technology > on line. Your guess, eh? Would that everyone on the net were as candid as you. 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. Whatever power sources we use, it makes sense to conserve (ie, not waste) to the best of our ability, both for (inextricably related) economic and ecological reasons. Jeff Winslow
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (08/13/84)
[] >>> Well, not really. The "best" new power "source" is: > >>> C O N S E R V A T I O N. > > >Whatever power sources we use, it makes sense to conserve (ie, not waste) >to the best of our ability, both for (inextricably related) economic and >ecological reasons. Agreed entirely. But one thing puzzles me: how can we classify conservation as a "source"? I mean, can you actually go to a "conservation source" and plug in?????? [ the above at least partially :-)] -- [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ] Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!loral!simard