From: Dr. Blake Nelson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Dec 02 2002 - 20:19:34 EST
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
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.
--- Glenn Morton <email@example.com> 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