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