"J. Clarke" wrote in news:g0mksh11jc5
@news3.newsguy.com:

Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

How about maybe developing our own oil fields and reserves? A
few
nuclear
reactors might be helpful as well. Had Bubba Clinton not
prohibited
drilling in ANWR in 1994, saying that it would take 10 years before
anything resulted anyway, we would now be getting 1 million barrels
a
day from that field.

But the Saudis have just stated that supply and demand are in
equilibrium. You don't believe your friends grin?

Conservation should be first and renewable energy second.
Developing
coal strategies third (with CO2 retention to prevent accumulation of
greenhouse gases),

So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2 forever?

Mother Gaia has done it, in clathrates, or whatever they call the
complexes in the cold nether regions of the oceans. It can be done other
ways as well.

nuclear fourth (with a strategy for making use of
nuclear waste),

Calculate the volume required to store the CO2 from using coal and the
volume required to store the waste from nuclear plants that produce
the same amount of power and tell us which makes more sense.

I'm all for nuclear energy, but the volume of waste is not the problem.
The problems with nuclear waste are the heat generated and the need to
contain it for a very, very long time. Definitely problems that can be
conquered, but there is a lot of NIMBY to contend with.

and developing new oil and gas fifth.

Just my opinion.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid