>If this is the best a "panel of experts" can come up with, we're f*****:
Yep, clusterwise. > >http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/08/news/economy/energy_report.reut/index.htm > >A plan for U.S. energy security? >Nation must diversify supplies, expand reserves, up fuel efficiency says >panel of energy experts. One can hardly argue that it will help to "diversify supplies, expand reserves, up fuel efficiency", but exactly how to go about that and the other more important required actions is the issue. Two years for a panel to develop this approach? Must have been done mostly at local pubs. It would appear there is not any clarity on the seriousness of the situation. Build a couple nuclear plants? A joke? A lot more than that is needed. Where are people with vision? At 10:50 AM 12/8/4, Mitchell Swartz wrote: >"For each gigawatt-day a city needs, a city must burn coal at a rate of >9,000 tons per day. >And in doing that, the pollution by this old technology will make 30,000 >tons of >carbon dioxide (CO2), 600 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), >and 80 tons of (nitrogen dioxide) NO2, and tons of other contaminants, >each and every day. .. By contrast, with cold fusion producing the same >amount of power ... >would produce only 4 pounds of helium exhaust." Yes, and there's more. See "Coal combustion no option" email I just posted. Regards, Horace Heffner
