Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pixadv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!harvard!wjh12!pixel!pixadv!cmm
From: cmm@pixadv.UUCP (cmm)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.sci,net.physics
Subject: Re: Re: lockpost blast, nuclear power, n - (nf)
Message-ID: <46@pixadv.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 23-Aug-84 13:33:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: pixadv.46
Posted: Thu Aug 23 13:33:05 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Aug-84 06:56:33 EDT
References: <3972@tekecs.UUCP> <3400021@ea.UUCP>
Organization: Pixel Computer Inc., Wilmington, Mass.
Lines: 28

<bye bye line>

> Conservation has worked well enough already to play hob with the Bonneville
> power Administration's demand forecasts (nw US) and eliminate (for many
> years) the need for the WppSS nuclear plants - a large factor in the
> current brouhaha over the plants.
> 				Jeff Winslow

| We seem to be suffering from a problem of different time scales. Bringing a
| new power technology on line is a 30+ year proposition. I suspect that
| conservation won't buy you *anything* beyond 300-400 years. Unless you're
| willing to start cutting back on things, like the population.
|	<mike

300 to 400 years from a single power source (conservation) is *far* longer than
we have been served by oil (inthe absence of conservation).  Three centuries
is a perfectly acceptable lifespan for conservation to provide us with needed
energy, and *should* provide time to develop alternatives.

BTW, is there a better newsgroup to maintain this discussion?  Net.followup
strikes me as being too unspecific (how about net.sci or net.physics?).
-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
cmm   (carl m mikkelsen)    | (617)657-8720x2310
Pixel Computer Incorporated |
260 Fordham Road	    | {allegra|ihnp4|cbosgd|ima|genrad|amd|harvard}\
Wilmington, Ma.  01887	    |     !wjh12!pixel!pixadv!cmm