me DeleteThis @nospam.com wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:07:00 -0500, in rec.motorcycles.harley you
> wrote:
>
>> me DeleteThis @nospam.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> debates on efforts to develop and utilize
>>>>>>>> alternative energy sources and encourage conservation (everyone has to
>>>>>>> yea well tell the stupid greenies we ARE building more Nuke plants,
>>>>>>> that in it self would make a hell of a difference.
>>>>>> According to one group of "stupid greenies" - "it would take one new
>>>>>> nuclear power plant every week until 2050 to fill the oil gap [includes
>>>>>> addressed increased energy demand in that time frame]. Minor detail,
>>>>>> uranium shortages would emerge long before 2050, unless as yet unproven
>>>>>> breeder reactors come on line soon."
>>>>> I call bullshit, beside cutting back doesnt necessarily mean replace
>>>>> them all, beside some say oil is replenishing and our "shortage" is
>>>>> based on years old surveys which they are now finding (with newer
>>>>> technology) way to drill deeper and safer
>>>> Oil is a finite resource. I thought the nuclear plant a week projection
>>>> was a trifle ambitious as well at first, yet if a nuclear plant were
>>>> built every week until 2050 - worldwide that would amount to 43 years x
>>>> 52 weeks/year = 2,236 plants. There are about 2,770 power plants in the
>>>> US alone right now. While they are not all oil fueled plants, it seems
>>>> to make the projected number of power plants for conversion to nuclear
>>>> worldwide much more realistic.
>>> again not every plant needs to be changed over, get rid of 50% of the
>>> oil burning plants over a 40-50 year period sounds pretty good to me,
>>> then again I will be long dead by then, but it might make a huge
>>> differnce for my grandson
>> You are ignoring the future. In today's news, "As the nation struggles
>> to meet electricity demand - expected to surge 50% in the next 30 years".
>>
>> http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/14/news/companies/water_power/index.htm
>
> cnn, I don't believe them! they will use any tactic to scare trhe
> public!
Like telling the truth? Did you see the other article linked at the
bottom of that article that scared us?
http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/13/news/economy/oil_conference/index.htm?...tversio
> besides they are still using a growth rate of yesterday to the
> percentage of population growth expected, (which is lower than
> anticipated already) and does not take into account of future
> development of technology of items to use less resources, just look at
> the difference in lighting alone in the last decade.
Less resources tomorrow is more than what we use today using whatever
conservative growth estimates you can produce for us, with or without
the new light bulbs. Many folks place great faith in technology - but
it's technology that has created the resource scarcity we have now and
demand the resources required in the future. This faith is based upon a
belief that technology has solved more problems than it created in the
past. You are making an assumption that "in the near future" you are
going to see technology function to *sunstantially* solve enough current
problems while ceasing to create new problems. The faith also assumes
this great leap forward will be available in time.
Think of the amount of time it takes to get emissions accords between
nations. The time required to get - China, Europe, Indonesia, and
whatever countries are rapidly developing (technologically advancing) in
the future - on line with your new negative reverse impact technology
that they may not be able to - or choose to - afford - or will affect
growth substantially enough to force people to make further bad choices.
And this assumes you can get enough nations to agree.
In the analogy of Easter Island - a civilization that collapsed - the
poor bastard who was cutting down the last tree wasn't aware that the
island had once been covered with trees - his ancestors would have known
but not him - and that awareness is numbed by the lapse of time where
people do nothing but focus on their short term interests. It happens
over and over again.
> I think we are going to see some pretty fast moving technology in the
> near future that will put less strain on our power resource
Fast moving technology requiring what resources that will hopefully be
readily available and economically extractable in enough quality and
quantity to be effective? It's a dream unless you can point to that
technology now and implement it now.
Like Hannibal Lecter said, "tick-tock, tick-tock".
But then he also said, "You know what you look like to me, with your
good bag and your cheap shoes? You look like a rube. A well scrubbed,
hustling rube with a little taste. Good nutrition has given you some
length of bone, but you're not more than one generation from poor white
trash, are you, Agent Starling? And that accent you've tried so
desparately to shed? Pure West Virginia. What's your father, dear? Is he
a coal miner? Does he stink of the lamb? You know how quickly the boys
found you... all those tedious sticky fumblings in the back seats of
cars...while you could only dream of getting out... getting anywhere...
getting all the way to the FBI."
--
JMark
>> Stay informed about: "We have a right to have honest football games" 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
