Re:
[email protected]
J. Clarke wrote:
"They" somehow made nuclear reactors in spite of the fears of many that any
attempt to create nuclear power in any form would immediately destroy the
earth. "They" somehow exceeded the 30 mph speed that was commonly believed
to be fatal. "They" can do some damned amazing things if people will get the
hell out of the way and write some checks.
Don't be disengenuous. That's a schoolboy's argument. Actually, not an
argument at all, just a diversion.
See Granada. See thermal storage. Not perfect but if you can get 60 percent
of power in the day and 20 percent at night, do you not see that this is
massively better than burning fossil fuels for heat, electricity, and
transportation and living at the whim of foreign oil cartels? Seriously,
tell me why on earth that would not be better, even if it costs more.
You're not going to get sustainable energy without new costs. Do you want it
or not? And "I want it but don't want to pay for it" is the same as no.
Why? So you don't have to start somewhere unless it's perfect and in its
final form? Can you cite a technology which has been implemented that has
not improved in efficiency and/or cost over time?
Why don't you haul your happy ass over to Granada and tell them their system
doesn't work. Let us know how that works out for ya.
You don't want to believe, or won't say you believe the evidence about the
Spanish developments because I posted it. That much is obvious.
They are on pace for a much greater percentage in the near future.
So now you're the hysterical guy who doesn't believe science can make the
process efficient and says the sky will fall because we will cover the earth
with mirrors and silicon.
So Mister Engineer has no faith in science and engineering. I don't get it.
Waah. So you think the stuff you want won't raise raites? You think energy
costs are somehow magically going to remain stable? People had better get
used to paying more for energy, and in return, if politicians and vested
interests do not prevail, they might actually be able to hand a liveable
planet to their grandchildren.
Now that's just ignorant. You just want to argue if you're making statements
like that. And hey, maybe there are more important medical issues. Ya think?
And it is available.
OK, they use solar and other sustainable technologies. Is that better? A big
factory has a big roof. No reason not to have a big solar array. Long term,
it's more efficient that buying power from the grid and it's much better for
the planet.
It's already developed in basic form. The task is to make it inexpensive and
efficient to apply. For a guy who is supposedly educated in science and
engineering, you sound a lot more like the doomsday scenario people and
politicians whose agendas cause them to try to scare people away from
progress. Have you no confidence in technology?
The more it is developed and the more it is implemented, the less it will
cost. Why are you worried about money anyway? It's about sustainability and
efficiency, or at least, that's what you were saying about nuclear.
That's really a simple man's argument, who knows nothing of technology. You
should know better. And surely you can factor in costs over time rather than
today's build costs and consider less expensive more efficient equipment
which is destined to exist in the future unless a bunch of naysayers once
again stand in the way of science and progress.
