"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote in
acquisition:

J. Clarke wrote:
So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2
forever?

Why not?......Is the capture and storage cost prohibitive?......Are
not rising levels of CO2 simply the release of naturally stored CO2?


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'd agree with current technologies and costs nuclear is the only or
the largest viable energy crisis alternative.......

If it were not for the problems of waste control and control of plutonium
(apart from cheap nuclear weapon material, it is also very, very toxic),
nuclear would be ideal. Hence the '60's ideas of fusion energy, still a
great potential source.

Renewables are simply stop gaps and niche products and often
expensive....

Not so. I signed up for electricity delivery from renewable sources, and
I hope I am not hoodwinked. The info and bills say I am getting 100% of
my electricity from wind and water, all for ~$4/month more. OK, on a
$50/month electric bill it is by percentage a lot, perhaps, but not much
in impact on my pocketbook.

Conservation makes a good sound bite but no one ever
rationed themselves to prosperity. Possibly worthwhile for getting
through hard times but never for solving hard times. Rod

Conservation can be as easy as walking to the post office 200 yards away,
instead of starting up the car from cold, just for getting a few stamps.
Or turning off the lights when not needed. Conservation need not be a
measure of last resort, but is just a showing of respect for natural
resources.

All in my opinion, of course! And I do leave my computers on too much
grin.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid