Chuck McManis wrote:
>
> Consider it flame bait if you like, but if you run the numbers this country
> would be a lot better off (fewer people killed generating the power, fewer
> natural resources destroyed) with a nuclear power infrastructure than it
> would be with a fossil fuel powered one.
>
> --Chuck
and, if you consider the possibility of catastrophic climate
change from global warming resulting by past and
present burning (the blame falling disproportionately on the US),
the number of casualties might be in the billions, due to
starvation. I know, nobody really knows what _could_ happen,
but nobody can deny that the possibility exists either. Well,
maybe some people deny it, but by and large they are linked to
the oil companies.
To keep this on topic, I have been comparing daily electric load
profiles from 40, 30 and 20 years ago to the present ones.
Starting 40 years ago, profiles became bimodal (one peak at
11:00 AM, another (larger) around 5-6:00PM in winter, or 8:00PM
in the summer). So, turning the lights
on at home after work (and for preparing dinner) meant the
largest load. This second peak slowly evolved to an earlier
hour (2:00PM-4:00PM), while the earlier peak grew to a size
comparable to that of the second one in winter, and only slightly
smaller in the summer. Only two factors at work here: computers
and air conditioning.
--
Carlos Murillo-Sanchez email: cem14_at_cornell.edu
428 Phillips Hall, Electrical Engineering Department
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Received on Sat Nov 27 1999 - 18:39:46 GMT