From: jim.richards65@yahoo.com   
      
   On Sun, 27 May 2012 14:17:43 -0400, Vaughn    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 5/26/2012 9:00 AM, Jim Rojas wrote:   
   >   
   >> There are plenty of alternatives...wind, geothermal, tidal flow, solar.   
   >> At least Japan is taking a stand. We in the USA are always profit   
   >> motivated, regardless of the casualties.   
   >   
   >I am in favor of maximum utilization of all the "alternatives" you   
   >mention.  I even have a modest solar power system myself!  But none of   
   >your "alternatives" can presently displace much base power capacity.   
   >Delude yourself all you wish, but the truth is the only thing we have   
   >that can replace nuclear power plants is fossil fuel plants.  The   
   >anti-nukes NEVER will honestly discuss the human-killing environmental   
   >damage associated with replacing clean nuclear power with fossil.   
   >   
   >Simple truth: With fossil power, the waste disposal problem remains   
   >unsolved.  The "waste" is dumped directly into our atmosphere where we   
   >all breath it.  With global warming, the health problems from power   
   >plant air pollution may be the LEAST of our problems!   
   >   
   >Vaughn   
   The total annual energy used by the US, 40.1% goes to producing   
   electric power, and of that, a whopping 9% is produced by renewables,   
   and of that, less than half is produced by a renewable other than   
   hydro, but on the other hand, 21% is produced by nuclear.   
      
   So, not unless people are advocating turning the clock back to the   
   1890's, these rosy solutions need to get real, before people figure   
   out how much world population growth depended on cheap energy, and the   
   current world's population depends on cheap energy.   
      
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States   
      
   Curbie   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)