Sender: |
|
X-To: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:56:06 +0000 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
base64 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="utf-8" |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Bob at al, Back around 2010, one of our IEEE Pittsburgh section guys gave a seminar demonstrating that nuclear power was the only real option. Premature deaths produced by coal-burning plants would be reduced as well.
Conservation offers some relief. The July 2014 IEEE Spectrum has an interesting article about the miserable efficiency of the ovens, even the high-end ones, used in 'developed' countries. And they do a poor job of cooking food.
Long ago I observed that the expansion of human population was due to use of fossil fuels. Will technological developments allow even maintenance of current population levels? No present-day TechNetter may live to know the answer. Louis Hart
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Kondner
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] NTC - I believe ... (my credo)
Hi,
Renewable energy sources tend to be expensive and from what I read can only be counted on for 20% of total usage. That leaves a huge hunk to be provided by "Large Infrastructure" producers. (Fossil fuel or nukes.) I do love saving energy, that is a win / win if there ever was one.
Batteries cost so much they are almost useless here. Electro chemical systems are not exactly "Clean".
If that 20% limit for renewable is real I think that means nuke plants for the bulk (breeder ???) is all we have left?
Any Thoughts?
Bob K.
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
|
|
|