home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: talk.environment
- Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!CSD-NewsHost!jmc
- From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
- Subject: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear
- In-Reply-To: dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu's message of Fri, 8 Jan 1993 06:12:43 GMT
- Message-ID: <JMC.93Jan7231030@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: news@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU
- Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
- Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
- References: <1993Jan3.013947.25856@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
- <1993Jan3.232128.11928@inel.gov> <2CKWB3KM@cc.swarthmore.edu>
- Date: 7 Jan 93 23:10:30
- Lines: 33
-
- In article <2CKWB3KM@cc.swarthmore.edu> dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Pedersen) writes:
-
- The reason that there is no money in solar energy research and development
- is that the fossil fuel industry is highly subsidized by the government,
- since not all of the costs of using fossil fuels are incorporated into the
- price of "conventional power" technology. If the costs of the environmental
- impact of fossil fuels were incorporated, as well as incentives for finding
- alternate solutions when the fossil fuels run out, then it would be
- economically viable to invest in alternative energy sources.
-
- The current administration talks a lot about free market economics, but
- subsidizes fossil fuels, water use in California and farmers around the
- country without admitting it. It's just to damn cheap to use anything but
- fossil fuels.
-
- -->Daniel Pedersen - Keren's Daddy (215)543-8961
- dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu pedersen@engin.swarthmore.edu
- ======================================================================
- Highway sign on I-10, AZ: "Federal Prison - Do Not Pick Up Hitch-Hikers"
- 50 yards later: "Campground Next Right"
- "Why do you kill people?" - "I am a terminator." [Terminator 2]
-
- Would Daniel Pedersen tell us how much money is spent on solar energy
- research per year, - 1 million, 10 million, 100 million, 300 million,
- 1 billion? Rhetorically, it is best to say "no money", so the actual
- number is irrelevant. Therefore, an administration that might hope
- for credit from Daniel Pedersen would be well advised to spend no
- money at all on solar energy research.
- --
- John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
- *
- He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
-
-