Hello Michael, Rick and all
To any and all who may be interesting in my two bits.
As a relatively long time watcher of this list, it has been my
experience that the issues raised by the press releases that are sent to
this list by the super well read Keith Addison are both important to be
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Addison
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 7:11 AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths
Hello Michael, Rick and all
To any and all who may be interesting in my two bits.
As a relatively long time watcher
To any and all who may be interesting in my two bits.
As a relatively long time watcher of this list, it has been my
experience that the issues raised by the press releases that are sent to
this list by the super well read Keith Addison are both important to be
published, and appealing in terms
Joey,
Biofuel? How did you get to this issue. LOL
Do you belong to this group of people that regularly visit energy lists and
try to provoke a nuke discussion?
I have stopped from a participating in a few lists because of this group,
which seems to be roughly the same people all the time.
Just because something may be doable doesn't mean that it's feasible,
whether that feasibility is higher ratios of waste, expanded dispersal
of radioactivity, increased economic cost, increased energy cost, etc.,
etc., etc.
Even if all things are equal in comparison to traditional refining,
Excellent points Hakan. Plenty of other places to discuss
nuclear. Whatever role nuclear has or doesn't have in the future,
biofuels will have a critical role in meeting our future energy needs. I
agree, natural tie ins are OK (e.g., wind power sited on biofuel fields), but
let's avoid the
a) It's not a board. It's a mailing list.
b) List rules state that calls to limit topic discussion are explicitly
forbidden. Or in the words of our fearless list owner: No Topic Cops.
c) It isn't your place to decide what the purpose of this board is.
Learn to use your delete key; if you
jh,
"Deciding" wasn't what I had in mind, nor was I trying to be a
"Cop." As parties interested in biofuels and interested in keeping
this site dynamic, I think we all exercise some self-restraint in what we post
here.My caution, along the lines of Hakan I believe, is that, as a
practical
Hello Bob, Hakan
Excellent points Hakan. Plenty of other places to discuss nuclear.
Whatever role nuclear has or doesn't have in the future, biofuels
will have a critical role in meeting our future energy needs. I
agree, natural tie ins are OK (e.g., wind power sited on biofuel
fields),
Hello Todd, Joey
Just because something may be doable doesn't mean that it's
feasible, whether that feasibility is higher ratios of waste,
expanded dispersal of radioactivity, increased economic cost,
increased energy cost, etc., etc., etc.
Even if all things are equal in comparison to
Dear Hakan,
I may be naive as I am fairly new to the list but it looks to me like
the question grew out of a ISIS press release about nuclear power. As I
am more interested in biofuels myself I'd hate to get into a long thing
that would detract from that but I am curious as to the answer to
Keith,
What sort of impact has been made by the use of ISL (in situ leaching)
methods of uranium extraction on the overall disturbance and pollution of
uranium 'mining'. Does this method reduce the impact?
-Joey
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
12 matches
Mail list logo
