🚀 go-pugleaf

Ryan Cragg wrote:
> 
> On 19 Oct 1997 14:17:59 GMT, kym@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym
> Horsell) wrote:
> 
> >In article <61cgjv$fh0@crl.crl.com>,
> >Paul W. Cashman <vanyel@crl.crl.com> wrote:
> >>kym@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) writes:
> (snip)
> >>
> >>Moreover, the amount of land area required to mount solar cells to
> >>equal a typical coal or nuclear (or pumped-storage or....) power plant
> >>isn't measured in acres, but in SQUARE MILES!     --Dozens of square
> >>miles, in fact.   Funny; I don't see environmentalists screaming about
> >>the resulting damage to regional arcologies from such a vast project.
> >>Wonder why, forsooth?
> >
> >This argument also won't wash (and is actually of the same general form).
> >
> >If "amount of land that's used" was an over-riding factor, freeways
> >would be banned.
> >
> >Other factors to consider -- why "land"? There's lots of ocean, for
> >example.
> >
> Yeah, and it might be a good idea, if there was nothing living in the
> ocean.  Most of the CO2 is converted back into O2 by plants in the
> ocean, not on land.
> 
> >In any case -- thinking in terms of what you _know now_ (either in
> >terms of "basic science" or "basic economics") is not a proven way to
> >anticipate or attempt to "refute" a given technology. ;-) It would
> >seem exactly the opposite.
> 
> Yeah, we should build them on the oceans anyway, damn the
> consequences.  The best way to evaluate any new technology is to just
> go ahead and use it, regardless of any obvious drawbacks. Then, once
> the damage is done...forgot where I was going with this argument.
> 
> ryan "who the hell decided to cross-post to all these groups" cragg
> not that i'm helping
this is a test, sorry for the inconvenience