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 05:57:10 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!uio.no!ntnu.no!not-for-mail
From: Preben Randhol <randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@pvv.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: OT: Nuclear Waste (Was Re-Marketing Ada)
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:57:10 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: PVV
Message-ID: 
 <slrnbrs6dm.184.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
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>
 <fqnrrv451qkgmrtgjo9rv54fe4n9c0a1lm@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.241.83.78
X-Trace: tyfon.itea.ntnu.no 1069423030 9011 129.241.83.78 (21 Nov 2003
 13:57:10 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@itea.ntnu.no
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:57:10 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.0 (Linux)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2802
Date: 2003-11-21T13:57:10+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2003-11-21, Dmitry A Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> 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?

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

Please explain.

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

Or drawing heat from the ground.

-- 
"Saving keystrokes is the job of the text editor, not the programming
 language."