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