Geoff, You took the words right off my keyboard! ;-)
If we had the subsidies for solar/wind that nuclear did in 1970 we would not be having this discussion now. Now that we have viable solar and wind power, largely thanks to environmental entrepreneurs and their European customers, we can go forward with a much less dangerous, and less expensive solution. Ironically it is the same one that we were trumpeting 30 years ago! David David Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 978-697-6123 On Feb 20, 2007, at 3:14 PM, Geoffrey Patton wrote: > Certainly, it was people consuming in an uncontrolled manner that > increased greenhouse gases - not environmentalists concerned about > radioactive waste. > > Trading one long-term mess for an even longer-term mess is > irrational. There still is no solution to radioactive waste. > > We're talking thousands to hundreds of thousands of years of > contamination, rather than just the centuries involved with global > climate change. It comes down to externalization of costs and how > long before that piper returns to collect his due. When will we learn? > > Geoff Patton > Wheaton, MD > > Paul Cherubini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't believe I've heard anyone mention nuclear energy > in the carbon offsetting discussion. > > The other day on another forum Professor Bruce Walsh of > the University of Arizona offered this insight: > > "Is global warming a serious enough of a problem for us to > go nuclear? Remember, the folks that shut down new nuclear > power plant constructions made a major contribution to > increased greenhouse gases." > > Paul Cherubini > El Dorado, Calif. > > > > --------------------------------- > The fish are biting. > Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. David Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 978-697-6123
