Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site loral.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!sdccs6!loral!simard
From: simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics
Subject: Re: lockpost blast, nuclear power, new energy sources, conservation
Message-ID: <410@loral.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-Aug-84 16:21:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: loral.410
Posted: Mon Aug 13 16:21:29 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Aug-84 06:51:37 EDT
References: <3972@tekecs.UUCP>
Organization: Loral Instrumentation, San Diego, CA
Lines: 26

[]

>>> Well, not really. The "best" new power "source" is:
>
>>>		C O N S E R V A T I O N.
>
>
>Whatever power sources we use, it makes sense to conserve (ie, not waste)
>to the best of our ability, both for (inextricably related) economic and
>ecological reasons.

Agreed entirely.  But one thing puzzles me: how can we classify
conservation as a "source"?  I mean, can you actually go to a
"conservation source" and plug in??????  

[ the above at least partially :-)]



-- 
[     I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet     ]

Ray Simard
Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
{ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!loral!simard