🚀 go-pugleaf

References: <57d02n$4lh$1@sydney.DIALix.oz.au> <5cu613$cts$1@coffee.DIALix.COM>
 <5da3lh$mk0$1@grissom.powerup.com.au> <5dcg7d$nvq$1@coffee.DIALix.COM>
 <5du52u$2hk@laplace.ee.latrobe.edu.au> <5e3fnt$gvs$5@coffee.DIALix.COM>
 <3308FCB8.3602@wantree.com.au> <5ec6j2$apb$4@coffee.DIALix.COM>
Lines: 67

In article <5ec6j2$apb$4@coffee.DIALix.COM>,
eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling) wrote:
\Hercules Gunter <hgunter@wantree.com.au> wrote:
\
\\Greig Ebeling wrote:
\\.
\\. The projected economic viablility of fossil fuels as a power supply in
\\. Australia is about 100-150 years.  Nuclear fission has a projected
\\. future greater than 10 times that.
\
\[snip]
\
\\And the expected lifetime of the sun, which is admittedly a nuclear
\\device (a long way away, and still dangerous at that distance), is
\\greater still.  Alternative ways of accessing that energy would be a far
\\better investment.  Nuclear power is at best a very expensive and
\\dangerous intermediate-term solution.
\
\As many individuals in this ng have tried to point out, solar energy
\is not a viable method of producing power.  That is not to say that it
\won't/can't be in the future, and I for one would fully support its
\impementation

Sure you would, just like Henny Penny's friends would gladly have eaten the bread, once cooked, however they did not see it as viable, presented with a just handful of seeds.

If people won't commit to alternatives, they won't have any. Sorry. It's up to your mob, not ours, to fix the situation.

\if it became viable, but alas it is not ready for large
\scale use, and doesn't look promising.
\
\The worlds energy needs are immediate, and cannot be put on hold in
\the hope that alternatives will introduce themselves.

But we don't have to take the most dangerous option as our short-term fix-gap.

\\The curious thing about this debate is that the pro-nuclear types see it
\\as the only viable alternative to existing technologies,
\
\Nuclear is not an "alternative".  The world has already gone nuclear,
\and showing signs of continuing along that path.  The question is:
\what is Australia's role in this matter?

Digging up dirt and harbouring mobile nuclear reactors and bombs. Researching medicinal uses for the dirt we dig up. Developing alternatives, so we can dig up other, more useful dirt instead.

\\and the
\\anti-nuclear faction sees a danger the other lot don't.
\
\The anti-nuclear faction are simply afraid of what they don't
\understand.

You would seem to have the stupider end of the stick - being unafraid of what you don't understand.

\
\\It seems to me that it is not a question of fossil fuel vs. nuclear.
\\All our existing technologies (including nuclear) have significant
\\disadvantages, the relative importance of these disadvantages being
\\perceived differently by the two camps.  Surely we would to better to
\\explore alternatives to our present inadequate options?
\
\They ARE being explored.
\...Greig

Not very f&*6ing much.

Simeon