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

veritas <khogantwo@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

On Jun 16, 10:51 pm, wdst...@xxxxxxxxx (William December Starr) wrote:
In article <b9aa5a29-3b8c-412f-a3e3-2002dc1f9...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Quadibloc <jsav...@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 <wdst...@xxxxxxxxx>

William, one of the problems with nuclear plants is if you try to
build one you get about 300 lawsuits filed to stop it. If no one
objected that would be one thing, but because of the lawsuits, it
takes years. Ken Hogan

If it only took years, you wouldn't be able to swing a dead cat
without hitting one.

It would take _decades_ given the current legal and regulatory
environment.

I suspect $5 / gallon (and heading for 10) gasoline will fix that
little problem in the bye and bye.

--
#include <disclaimer.std> /* I don't speak for IBM ... */
/* Heck, I don't even speak for myself */
/* Don't believe me ? Ask my wife :-) */
Richard D. Latham lathamr@xxxxxxxxxx
.