"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:01:04 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

2) I don't mind ****ing off the Kennedy's, but geographically I hope
it is not cutting off one's nose to spite one's face (the studies say,
not). Wind is a good way to go, though, and I suspect that the project
will be approved this year and we may see a turbine in place in about
4 years....

http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...rpc=22&sp=true


Not that I particularly care or am even concerned, but it sure won't
surprise me to read a future report by an AGore wannabe that widespread
use of wind power has detrimental effects on the earth's natural air
currents, seed distribution and overall global tinkering with nature.

Nuclear power is the answer. Clean, safe and has been the center of our
solar system and of the universe for that matter, for billions of years.

Eisboch

Only a few problems with nuclear. But I agree, currently our best option.

First, it needs to be safer to run. And not just the uranium cycle, but the
thorium cycle is pretty good characteristics here and the US even has
thorium reserves. The issue is 3-mile island type issues. Needs a massive
KISS redesign for dummies to get it right every time.

Second issue, as hot water/steam is involved, the greenies will still
complain. 1/2 the greenies out there are stupid sheep following a pied
piper -- Green has more to do with marketing and crowd control than reality.
But none the less, greens will pounce on every nuke for something to do.

Now to store the stuff for mobility, add lead, mercury, lithium and other
heavy metals that are usually considered toxic. Have to buy one whole lot
of batteries to pull a boat.