Re: "The Only Thing They Learn" -- does anyone else find it irritating?

In article <b9aa5a29-3b8c-412f-a3e3-2002dc1f99ac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@xxxxxxxxx> said:

Solar and wind alternatives, and better electrical storage options
can still produce *only so much* energy per square mile of land,
so society would still be heavily constrained by energy output.

This is particularly a concern if one has to wage a war, which
makes one suspicious of the hidden agenda of the alternative
energy crowd.

Oh my. "Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep..."

But it *is* a false choice - but that's because we have the option
of nuclear power.

Then there's this guy and his quite pessimistic analysis of the
economic viability of nuclear power:

<http://zedc4test.techprogress.org/issues/2008/nuclear_power_report.html>
"The Self-Limiting Future of Nuclear Power"
by Joseph Romm, June 2, 2008
Full report:
<http://zedc4test.techprogress.org/issues/2008/pdf/nuclear_report.pdf>

I confess to not having read the full .pdf-ed report, just his brief
summary, and I also have no knowledge as to where he might be on the
spectrum between "he's absolutely correct" and "what a maroon."

--
William December Starr <wdstarr@xxxxxxxxx>
.