From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,60e2922351e0e780
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-21 04:54:57 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-atanamir.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail
From: Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: OT: Nuclear Waste (Was Re-Marketing Ada)
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:57:55 +0100
Message-ID: <fqnrrv451qkgmrtgjo9rv54fe4n9c0a1lm@4ax.com>
References: <oH8ub.4782$n56.638@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <jL9ub.34$2z1.1706@news20.bellglobal.com>
 <I_aub.9262$3o6.6712@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>
 <49cbf610.0311191248.7eb48a43@posting.google.com>
 <bebbba07.0311192231.48b3056a@posting.google.com>
 <SqmdnVW4jrTaViGiRVn-sA@comcast.com>
 <jioprvkn6v025drp4qf1iuolqdto3rtd89@4ax.com>
 <bpj0di$2a8b$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
 <sajrrv43irru5va8nai4crt0rvbijqppbu@4ax.com>
 <slrnbrrmmc.184.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-atanamir.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.116)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1069419295 60831062 212.79.194.116 (16 [77047])
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2797
Date: 2003-11-21T13:57:55+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:28:42 +0000 (UTC), Preben Randhol
<randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@pvv.org> wrote:

>On 2003-11-21, Dmitry A Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
>> In a long term perspective, there is no alternative to nuclear energy.
>> CO2 emission is rather a short term problem. 
>
>You never know. The main reason why so much fossile fule is used is the
>low cost.

Low *visible* cost. Nobody calculated the actual costs carried by
state in the forms of subventions, health care, etc

> Wind, wave, and solar power are also good alternatives,

They are not. They (and fossil fuel) are based on the solar energy. If
you take it from somewhere, you inevitable damage that place. The
damage is little, but if we consider a long term perspective, then we
should take into account an exponential growth of energy consumption.

> but
>the electricity is much more expensive. Unfortunately there is little
>research in alternative power sources.

Yes, but what we mean under alternative power sources? Wind and solar
elements are clearly no runners.

In a medium term pespective waves, earth gravitation field, earth
magnetic field (there were NASA experiments), genetically modified
living organisms could be.

--
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de