| |
W0RLI > ENERGY 26.05.05 18:46l 60 Lines 1696 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 3460W0RLI
Read: GUEST OE7FMI
Subj: Re: Hydrogen, GM7HUD.
Path: DB0FHN<DB0MRW<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<DB0RES<DK0WUE<7M3TJZ<HG8LXL<CX2SA<W4JAX<
WB7AWL<KJ6EO<AE6JN<AE6JN<N7QDN<N7QDN<ka7agh<W0RLI
Sent: 050526/0402 13409@W0RLI.OR.USA.NOAM
<PA7KK@PI8APD.#GLD.NLD.EU> wrote in message news:8234_PI8APD...
> From: PA7KK@PI8APD.#GLD.NLD.EU
> To : ENERGY@WW
>
>
> GM7HUD, Andy wrote:
>
>>There are lots of downsides to nuclear power.
>
>>Here are the simple facts as to why nuclear is appealing.
>
>>* Oil consumption is increasing
>>* Oil reserves are finite
>>* Wind power is not guaranteed
>>* Wave power is unproven
>>* Biomass production requires more land than available
Biomass fuels require more oil input than they produce
energy output. Think about fertilzer, tractor fuel, transport,
processing. The net is a minus. You get out less than you
put in from oil / gas / etc. This is true for the alky fuels
as well as biodiesel.
You forgot the various flavors of solar and geothermal.
But they are not yet viable, and have serious polution issues.
Nobody has yet mentioned clathrates. Potentially large
source of methane, but also potential serious hazards.
>>The choices would appear to be a return to the stone age or live with the
>>problem of storing and disposing of nuclear waste. Which do you want
>>because stone age living doesn't appeal to me.
The good news is that nuclear produces less polution
than coal, and coal is the only other viable choice.
The bad news is that nuclear takes many years to bring online.
> Both choices look awful to me. But I admit, if we would run
> out of oil sooner than anticipated, and no other energy
> could feed the demand, the masses and I most likely
> would embrace nuclear energy, if our way of living would collapse.
> One cannot not hang on to a dream.
>
> 73's - Henry, PA7KK.
--
... Hank
http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
