Han wrote:
"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.

And where do we put these clathrates or "other ways"?

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

How much heat do you believe to be generated by nuclear waste once the
short-half-life elements have decayed?

and
the need to contain it for a very, very long time.

Whereas the CO2 has to be kept warehoused _forever_ or else there's no
point in warehousing it.

Definitely
problems that can be conquered, but there is a lot of NIMBY to
contend with.

And you think there won't be a lot of NIMBY once people figure out
that warehousing CO2 is going to take a huge amount of storage volume?

and developing new oil and gas fifth.

Just my opinion.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)