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 06:24:42 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 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: OT: Nuclear Waste (Was Re-Marketing Ada) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 15:27:46 +0100 Message-ID: References: <49cbf610.0311191248.7eb48a43@posting.google.com> 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 1069424681 60374762 212.79.194.116 (16 [77047]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2807 Date: 2003-11-21T15:27:46+01:00 List-Id: On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:57:10 +0000 (UTC), Preben Randhol wrote: >On 2003-11-21, Dmitry A Kazakov wrote: >> >> Low *visible* cost. Nobody calculated the actual costs carried by >> state in the forms of subventions, health care, etc > >But of course. I wouldn't expect economists to see thus far ;-) > >> 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. > >And you don't damage a plant with a nuclear power plant of a coal plant? Consider a level of consumption at, say, 2% of total solar radiation received by the earth. Take this amount from waves, wind, whatsoever, and the global ecological system would simply collapse. >> Yes, but what we mean under alternative power sources? Wind and solar >> elements are clearly no runners. > >Please explain. 1. watt / squaremeter of desolation 2. add here the unsolved problem of energy accumulation. Artificial lakes in Alps? Hydrogen cisterns all over the country? Greens like would-be-terrorists-attack arguments. Well, let's apply it here. BTW, the worst man-made explosions were ones of mineral fertilizers! -- Regards, Dmitry Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de