On Nov 27, 8:05 pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Nov 27, 10:06 am, wrote:

If it can't do that and wants to resume fossil fuel use, then no more
compliants about global warming should be heard from anyone living or
working in the state.

That's silly.

Not silly at all, because you quoted me out of context. IF an
experiment such as I suggested were to be run, AND they were not able
to maintain their lifestyle THEN they have no grounds to expect others
to follow the same strategy.


Just because *most* people in the state aren't likely to change their
lifestyles voluntarily to do something about global warming, that
doesn't mean that the enlightened few shouldn't continue to complain
even more loudly and clearly.

The "enlightened few" are not so "enlightened" as they would have
others believe. While the state-wide experiment I had suggested will
happen until we actually run out of fossil fuels, it is certainly
possible for someone on a farm or "enlightened" citizens of a small
town to try to support themselves without direct or indirect reliance
on fossil fuels.

Until someone listens. Hopefully in time
to avert global disaster.

With nuclear power as one of the energy sources, there is _no
question_ that we can meet

some of

our energy needs without use of fossil
fuels. Except for the fossil fuels we'll use while we're building all
those nuclear power plants.

Then you need to maintain the plants, and the power line networks,
mine new sources of uranium, etc. No machine lasts forever, so you
will need to replace the plants or large components of them,
eventually.

That's fine - this _is_ a selfish
strategy. Get one's own nuclear power plants built *now*, while one
can still use fossil fuels for the trucks going to the construction
site - so that when the world wakes up, and fossil fuels are banned,

Oh, yeah, that'll happen. We will run low on fossil fuels though,
eventually.

at least *your* area will be sitting pretty with abundant nuclear
power

Until your power plants succumb to the ravages of time...then what?

while everyone else is suffering on what little energy they can
get from wind and solar. (Well, _some_ other lucky people already have
hydroelectricity.)

Well, not exactly. It is nice to imagine that your large local
hydroelectric plant serves only your immediate area, but it doesn't.

Given that current warming has already started methane release, and
the oceans are becoming acidic from absorbing too much carbon dioxide,
we probably can't avert the climate catastrophe, so we should *at
least* secure our energy supplies while we still can.

And figure out how to maintain them without a fossil fuel
infrastructure. Good luck.

If I'm pessimistic, and switching to nuclear does help prevent
disaster, all the better.