Re: Guardian: Solar power from Sahara could provide Europe's electricity, says EU

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:30:58 +0100, "Dr Quite" <quite@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>
>"Paul C" <paul@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>news:2o1f84hlcg9vgedqtjlft0einrqq9gs2j0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:13:07 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
>> <roberts218e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>On 23 Jul, 20:03, Paul C <p...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:37:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <roberts2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> >On 23 Jul, 18:32, Steve Wallis
>>>> ><revolutionarysocialistst...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> >> From today's Guardian 
>>>> >> (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/
>>>> >> 23/solarpower.windpower), in an article referred to on the front 
>>>> >> page.
>>>> >> There is a picture with the caption "A concentrating solar power 
>>>> >> (CSP)
>>>> >> plant in Spain that uses panels to reflect light on to a central 
>>>> >> tower
>>>> >> to produce electricity. Similar plants are proposed for north 
>>>> >> Africa."
>>>> >> of a new kind of solar power plant that I had not heard of before,
>>>> >> despite reading a serious newspaper nearly every day and having
got
>>>> >> New Scientist for the last six months. Perhaps this was due to a
>>>> >> conspiracy to keep knowledge from us of how easily the world's
energy
>>>> >> problems could be solved, cheaply and without causing global
warming
>>>> >> (whether or not such warming has mainly been caused by humans).
>>>>
>>>> >> Maybe the political will to back such a solution will now be
found,
>>>> >> rather than taking up the expensive and dangerous nuclear option.
>>>>
>>>> >Nuclear power is neither expensive nor dangerous. Ask the French.
>>>>
>>>> Or those around Chernobyl.
>>>
>>>Chernobyl tells us that competently designed and maintained reactors
>>>are dangerous how exactly?
>>
>>
>> It tells us nothing of the sort. It tells us that where humans are
>> involved, things go wrong.
>
>That's a revelation.
>
>But what's your point? 
>
Doh!