From: "Robert Comer" 

No, there's more.  Solar and wind can contribute a lot, then there's
hydrothermal, hydroelectric, hydrogen (if we ever figure out how to extract
enough cheaply...)

I've got nothing against nuclear though, we need more plants, and we need
them *now*.  With the much excess electricity, we can think more of battery
power too. (of course we need better batteries too!)

--
Bob Comer


"Geo."  wrote in message
news:45b95092$3{at}w3.nls.net...
> There is only one good energy source that won't screw up the planet,
> nuclear.
>
> Geo.
>
> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
> news:45b8bbc8{at}w3.nls.net...
>> We have to cut down oil usage somehow, that's the real terrorist threat
>> that you seem to be so concerned about.
>>
>> I'm not saying ethanol is the correct way to go, but *something* has to
>> be done to cut down on our reliance of foreign oil.  The less oil we
>> need, the less meddling we have to do, and the less meddling, the less
>> animosity towards us.
>>
>> --
>> Bob Comer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:45b82df5{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>I think I recall a few intellectual arguments against my disdain for
>>>using "corn for fuel."
>>>
>>> If I recall correctly those arguments were along the lines of
"global
>>> energy generation transcends the minutia of food vs.
fuel," because it's
>>> all the same thing in the end and taking corn off the food market to
>>> satisfy the transportation market was no big deal because lower oil
>>> prices would offset any effects...
>>>
>>> Perhaps those arguments were misplaced:
>>>
>>>
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0701130049jan13,0,5505881.story
>>> "Ethanol's effect: Expensive tortillas"
>>>
>>> I guess starving out the Mexicans is an acceptable trade-off for
>>> enriching the ethanol producers in the US?
>>>
>>> For me, I like Exxon/Mobil over ADM 8 days a week.
>>>
>>
>>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5