[lit-ideas] Re: Dumbing it down for Julie...
- From: "Julie Krueger" <juliereneb@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 00:03:08 -0500
Ah, if only all e-mails came through entirely intact and with universal
indications re. quotation style, etc.
One can only dream.
Thanks for clarifying.
Julie Krueger
admittedly slow and dumb under the best of circumstances
On 5/29/08, David Wright <wright@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> R e s p o n d i n g t o t h e f o l l o w i n g . . .
>
> Irene:
>
> Natural gas powers a lot of our electricity (oil is mostly transportation,
> agriculture, plastics and the like) and natural gas is going the way of oil
> which is to say, it's a finite resource, running down. Water is running
> down too, so states that use hydroelectric power may start to see declines
> in the not too distant future. Biofuel is a waste, literally.
> ...
> The problem with nuclear power plants is that they take about 10 years to
> come on line, and they take oil to build, so we need to get started on them
> pretty quick...
> ...
> The real answer is conservation, lots of conservation, plus wind and solar
> farms out in the desert. Also conserving water big time and transporting
> goods by rail and water instead of truck.
>
> w r i t i n g v e
> r y s l o w
> l y . .
> .
> d.
>
> Is David talking to himself?
> Julie Krueger
>
>
> On 5/29/08, David Wright <wright@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Well said. That is the problem, in a nutshell, that the majority will not
>> exercise limited use. I suspect that even coal would suffice if only...
>> That is, fundamentally, my argument against religious veggiedom. That is to
>> say, that abstention from the consumption of meat is not enough, it is
>> merely a star(t) on the horizon...
>>
>> egregiously yours,
>> d.
>>
>> I recently heard a discussion with pro-nuclear power types who claim
>> it's not dangerous. They made a pretty good case. The problem from what I
>> could tell is that we don't really have much choice. Natural gas powers a
>> lot of our electricity (oil is mostly transportation, agriculture, plastics
>> and the like) and natural gas is going the way of oil which is to say, it's
>> a finite resource, running down. Water is running down too, so states that
>> use hydroelectric power may start to see declines in the not too distant
>> future. Biofuel is a waste, literally.
>>
>>
>>
>> The problem with nuclear power plants is that they take about 10 years to
>> come on line, and they take oil to build, so we need to get started on them
>> pretty quick, and of course where to bury the rods (some can be recycled I
>> think). Unfortunately, we need so many power plants that there's only
>> enough uranium for about 20 years if enough plants were to be built to power
>> everything.
>>
>>
>>
>> The real answer is conservation, lots of conservation, plus wind and solar
>> farms out in the desert. Also conserving water big time and transporting
>> goods by rail and water instead of truck. I heard/read that Algeria I think
>> is coming up with solar farms, these huge magnified mirror type things, such
>> that they may be able to power Europe. We're not even beginning to think
>> about anything at all.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- On *Fri, 5/30/08, David Wright <wright@xxxxxxxx>* wrote:
>>
>> From: David Wright <wright@xxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Today's situation with food
>> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Date: Friday, May 30, 2008, 3:02 AM
>>
>> Always a Roberts reader, and even a secret Irene affic... I wouldn't
>> bust your (non-pork) chops if I didn't generally agree with you. By-the-by,
>> what are your thoughts on nuke power, considering that we cannot reasonably
>> expect the masses to limit their consumption of electricity.
>>
>> turning a dynamo,
>> d.
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- *Mail.com Autos * <http://www.oncars.com/>- Powered by Oncars.com:
> Drive By Today!
>
>
Other related posts:
