🚀 go-pugleaf

"Murray Love" <murraylove@home.com> wrote in message
news:%p_05.13945$F9.436088@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com...
>
>
> So I'm meant to spend money on a technology that I think makes a _great_
> hobby for other people, in order to lower prices?  Uhhh, I'll get back to
> you on that one, OK?
>
I thought so. Your idea of contributing solutions is to post in NGs until
everyone sees the wisdom of nukes. If they don't agree (and they won't),
then you can say that they should have listened. Here's a free idea- use
half the time you use to post here to work some extra hours. Use the money
to buy some CFs, extra insulation, or whatever you think will benefit YOU.
Or just keep posting, and I'll check back in five years to see how much that
reduced your energy consumption.
>
> I have this image of my Energy Systems professor fulminating:  "What does
> conservation mean?  Energy is ALWAYS conserved!"  But I think you're
talking
> about reductions of energy intensity (that is, energy used per unit of
GDP).
>
Gee, I hope it didn't tax your noggin too much to figure out what I meant by
"energy conservation". Next you'll be pointing out my  typos. Never mind
quoting figures about GDP. Here's a statistic for you. Fifteen years ago I
had a 400 amp (220V) electrical service. Ten years ago I had a 200 amp
service. Today I have an 35 amp, 10KWh per day independant system. And trust
me, I'm not suffering. Most of the things I had to do to get down to that
level could be done by any middle class family, grid or no. Even you could
do most of it, if you wanted to. But I'm not holding my breath. I will make
a prediction though- any money you spend on conservation or alternative
energy will pay off in less time than it will take to convince the public to
start building nukes again.

Wayne