RE: oil

From: Dr. Blake Nelson (
Date: Mon Dec 02 2002 - 20:19:34 EST

  • Next message: Walter Hicks: "Re: A request for help Re: Evolution & Identity of the ID designer"


    I like to try to do my part. ;) As I have said
    before, it is often a matter of degree. Sometimes, I
    can't resist replying to overstatement.

    Vis-a-vis nuclear power, I will be happy to post some
    specifics when I have a chance -- I am working 16+
    hour days on a regular basis these days.

    While your points have some validity, it is clearly
    overblown. Think about it logically. Regardless of
    what happens over the next several decades, new power
    plants will have to be built. To say that nukes will
    take up inordinate amounts of GDP over a short time
    period is simply wrong. Plants (including fossil fuel
    plants) have life cycles and have to be replaced,
    especially if they become cost ineffective as new and
    existing fossil fuel plants will as fossil fuel prices
    rise and/or operation costs more if something like
    Kyoto is implemented. The market will sort out the
    balance between fossil and nukes. One government
    regulatory change in the US could make this start to
    happen now.

    Unless you have fossil fuel production plummet (rather
    than plateau) over a very short-time period, the world
    will adjust. There will be money to be made on nukes
    and the private sector will build them and make money.

    Best regards,


    --- Glenn Morton <> wrote:
    > Hi Blake,
    > I can always count on you. If I say Yea you say nay.

    Do you Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Dec 02 2002 - 22:20:52 EST