🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <344EFEAE.5532@broekhuis.nl>,
   Utrecht7 cursist <utrecht7@broekhuis.nl> wrote:
>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
I think nuclear energy should be used untill a suitable replacement 
can be found. Who know's what we'll be able to do 30 years from now, 
even 10 years from we should be leaps and bounds ahead of where we 
are. Also I am rather confident that new ways of disposing of nuclear 
waste will also be invented. People tend not to factor in the time 
involved here. We are not going to run out of energy tomorrow, nor 
are we going to stop advancing what we know about our universe. 
Jerry