Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epsteinbd who wrote (7433)	10/16/2001 11:37:56 AM
From: joseph krinsky	Respond to of 27666

The solar would be used to make electricity not heat homes directly. But what's the point about arguing about the efficiency or lack of efficiency of alternative means, based on present technology?? They didn't spend the money on alternative methods, so we'll never know where they could have been by now in development. My point is that the resulting damage that was never thought about until chernobyl, can now be measured, and IMO it's not worth using nukes. It's okay for someone that isn't within a 1000 miles of a nuke power plant, I guess, but how many of us are? Even now, we could be spending a large amount on trying to develop the massive deposits of methane hydrate off the coasts, but we're not. nuke just isn't the way to go, IMO.