Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site tekecs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!tekecs!jeffw
From: jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics
Subject: Re: lockpost blast, nuclear power, new energy sources, conservation
Message-ID: <3972@tekecs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 12-Aug-84 17:43:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekecs.3972
Posted: Sun Aug 12 17:43:30 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 14-Aug-84 01:04:30 EDT
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 20

>> Well, not really. The "best" new power "source" is:

>>		C O N S E R V A T I O N.

> Yes, but it only works in the *very* short term. My guess would be
> that it won't even work long enough to bring a new power technology
> on line.

Your guess, eh? Would that everyone on the net were as candid as you.

Conservation has worked well enough already to play hob with the Bonneville
power Administration's demand forecasts (nw US) and eliminate (for many
years) the need for the WppSS nuclear plants - a large factor in the
current brouhaha over the plants.

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.

				Jeff Winslow