Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 02/26/07 10:08, Stephen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 09:34:12AM -0600 or thereabouts, Kent West wrote:
>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> But coal is less oogey-boogey scary [than nuclear].
>>>
>>> Besides, the power (a *LOT* of power) has to come from *somewhere*,
>>> on a *large* industrial scale. Especially over in China, where coal
>>> and auto pollution is hundreds of times worse than in the West.
>>>
>> I'm expecting solar power to become practical in the next three years or
>> so. At least, that's what the press-releases tell me to think ;-)
>
> Actually most practical people know that this won't ever be the case.
I think that Kent was being sarcastic.
> TVO (TV Ontario recently had a panel dicussion with some expert
> discussion supporting this [from the green side]). Wind/Solar energy
> isn't sustainable, and in a best case scenario will only be able to
> support energy that remains constant 24/7, regardless of overcast or
> windless days.
Like data centers.
Each part of the globe has it's own "preferred" form of "natural"
energy. In the American Great Plains, it's wind. In any desert,
it's direct solar, in other places it's hydro or geothermal.
Places like Hawaii and Yellowstone could/should make loads of
electricity, but no one has yet been clever enough to design
eco-*looking* power stations.
> If one cares, the show is available here in various formats;
> <http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=7&bpn=279095&ts=2007-02-13%2020:00:00.0>
>
> Somewhere it's discussed about the feasibility of wind/solar.
Thanks for the link, though.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFF4wlxS9HxQb37XmcRAlUsAKCU5FgE48mMxAoxTRaTpsqzPL5bRwCdEZi4
YL2byfJPxZx2sujq0GIGcXk=
=bBhP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: