on 7/26/05 7:05 AM, Michael Redler at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It seems to me that there is a preemptive attack on appropriate > alternatives so that any shortage in oil can be substituted with > nuclear energy. IMO, this seems to be the perfect plan for a > ruling class who wants to maintain control of the fuel supply. > Both petroleum oil and uranium are difficult to obtain for most > people. It also requires technologies that are specialized and > unavailable to most of us. > IMO, the situation you end up with is a way of stabilizing the > premium price of oil with nuclear power and the incorporation > of hydrogen as a way of diversifying nuclear power and giving > it the mobility it needs to enter into other markets when > petroleum becomes scarce. > I'm not committed to this theory ..... Why not? I wouldn't even call it a theory -- it's more just a cogent observation. The only thing I would add is the use of coal to make hydrogen. Coal is also (like nuclear) hard to use as a vehicle power source. But like nuclear, it can be readily used to make hydrogen (via gasification, which like nuclear, is also not a DIY type of operation). By pushing for a "hydrogen economy", they leave us with no other choices (solar electric would be hard but not impossible to scale up as quickly). -K _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
