Unfortunately, Andrew, that seems to be quite universal.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> I'd bet against it. We are addicted to big project thinking. Here we've
> just invested heavily in huge and massively expensive desalination projects
> when the sensible thing to my POV would be to build a highly diffused
> network of small and even domestic level purification plants and recycling
> facilities, especially considering that the overwhelming proportion of
> water that we use does not have to be drinkable or even clean. But there is
> no value in that for government, construction and employment in the big
> ticket, banner headline, short term approach that we seem to prefer.
> Andrew Fildes
> afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.soultheft.com
>
> Author/Publisher:
> The SLR Compendium:
> revised edition -
> http://blur.by/19Hb8or
> The TLR Compendium
> http://blur.by/1eDpqN7
>
>
>
> On 26/03/2014, at 1:38 AM, Scott Gomez wrote:
>
> > Using shipboard/submarine nuclear propulsion plants would be a step
> towards
> > the small, local power distribution and power plant design that really
> > seems to make more and more sense the more I look at it. And, as
> mentioned
> > by some others, there's the option of small thorium reactors.
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|