Stephen wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 09:34:12AM -0600 or thereabouts, Kent West wrote: >> Ron Johnson wrote: >> >But coal is less oogey-boogey scary [than nuclear]. >> > >> >Besides, the power (a *LOT* of power) has to come from *somewhere*, >> >on a *large* industrial scale. Especially over in China, where coal >> >and auto pollution is hundreds of times worse than in the West. >> > >> >> I'm expecting solar power to become practical in the next three years or >> so. At least, that's what the press-releases tell me to think ;-) > > Actually most practical people know that this won't ever be the case. > TVO (TV Ontario recently had a panel dicussion with some expert > discussion supporting this [from the green side]). Wind/Solar energy > isn't sustainable, and in a best case scenario will only be able to > support energy that remains constant 24/7, regardless of overcast or > windless days.
How many hydro dams are on the Mississippi, anyway? It would be a waste to be using coal or nuclear if there's a large, year round body of water subject to downhill flow. The pacific northwest and California gets the vast majority of it's electric from the Columbia and Snake rivers. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
