On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:34:38 -0800, brent wrote:
>for nuclear energy. It is the only
> viable energy source that could truly reduce green house gas. And yet,
> never a peep from people like Al Gore about the need to convert to
> nuclear - NOW.
>
> In my mind , the complete ignoring of the only viable solution to the
> problem they keep proclaiming makes them all frauds. The whole global
> warming thing is a fraud.

I used to think that nuclear was a reasonable answer (apart from the
still-not-solved problem of where to put the waste, but I think that's
probably solvable.) But last week I read an article in (I think) IEEE
Spectrum that said that the world was *currently* consuming about 30%
more uranium than is being mined, per annum (using up stockpiles), and
that even were production to be increased to meet current and extended
demand, there was about forty years' supply left in the ground.

I can't find that article at the moment, so can't quote the reference,
but it wasn't hard to find similar on the internet with five minutes'
googling.

With nuclear (fission) difficult and limited, fusion seemingly not going
to happen and oil on (or near) the downward slope, I reckon that
investments in "alternative" sources of energy are probably not that bad
an idea...

Cheers,

--
Andrew