 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsElectronicsBasicsRepairDesignCADComponentsEquipmentElectrical Engineering ElectronicsKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Electronics Forum / Basics / July 2008No One Ever Said Post Peak Oil Would Be A Rose Garden
If you don't like my solutions then post your own. Either lead follow or get out of the way. Bret Cahill You wouldnt know what a real rose garden was if you fell into it. > If you don't like my solutions then post your own. Or piss on your stupid w.nking from a great height. > Either lead follow or get out of the way. Let go of your dick before you end up completely blind, child. > You wouldnt know what a real rose garden was if you fell into it. I'll have you know that phosphoric acid is good for roses which thrive in low pH soil.. Bret Cahill >> You wouldnt know what a real rose garden was if you fell into it. > I'll have you know that phosphoric acid is good for roses which thrive in low pH soil.. Pathetic. > Or piss on your stupid w.nking from a great height. Oh look, another RepubliKKKan Turd with a sexual Fetish. This one for water sports, and probably scat too. So Pissboy ROD, if that is your real name.... Which do you like better, EuroScat, AmeriKKKanScat, or JapScat? Fatherland Security needs to know. On Jul 28, 9:56 am, "V for Vendicar" <Execute_The_Traitor_In_The_White_Ho...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Or piss on your stupid w.nking from a great height. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Fatherland Security needs to know. You are a congenital LLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRR and URAH FUCKIN MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > If you don't like my solutions then post your own. Already did that. Biodiesel for farming. LPG and CNG for cars. Exploit the oil sands and shale oil when the price of oil stays high enough for long enough to make that economically viable. Convert coal to liquid fuel when the price of oil stays high enough for long enough to make that economically viable. Replace coal fired power stations with nukes if you care about the CO2 emissions from power stations. Heat houses with electricty from nukes so the LPG and CNG can be used as a transport fuel. Generate hydrogen using nukes when the price of LPG and CNG is getting high enough to make that economically viable. Dont bother with solar when on the grid unless its cheaper than power from nukes and that has to allow for the fact that is mostly not available when its most in demand in most modern first world countrys. Use solar in some non grid situations like RVs running on biodiesel or LPG or CNG to run the engine. > BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote: > > If you don't like my solutions then post your own. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Use solar in some non grid situations like RVs running on biodiesel or LPG or CNG to run the engine. I like your approach man. Some of your response styles if tweaked could help you win alot of debates easily with the facts and clear persuasive arguments. Maybe build up a text database with responses and data supporting arguments. How would you defend your position on nuclear when someone comes up with these attacks? ...Critics claim that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous and decline [66]energy source, with decreasing proportion of nuclear energy in power production, and dispute whether the risks can be reduced through new technology. Critics also point to the problem of storing radioactive waste, the potential for possibly severe radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage, the possibility of nuclear proliferation and the disadvantages of centralized electrical production... ...The primary environmental impacts of nuclear power include Uranium mining, radioactive effluent emissions, and waste heat... ...Greenpeace has produced a report titled An American Chernobyl: Nuclear “Near Misses” at U.S. Reactors Since 1986 which "reveals that nearly two hundred “near misses” to nuclear meltdowns have occurred in the United States". At almost 450 nuclear plants in the world that risk is greatly magnified, they say. This is not to mention numerous incidents, many supposedly unreported, that have occurred. Another report produced by Greenpeace called Nuclear Reactor Hazards: Ongoing Dangers of Operating Nuclear Technology in the 21st Century claims that risk of a major accident has increased in the past years... ...Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons and related technology to nations not recognized as "Nuclear Weapon States" by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Since the days of the Manhattan Project it has been known that reactors could be used for weapons- development purposes—the first nuclear reactors were developed for exactly this reason—as the operation of a nuclear reactor converts U-238 into plutonium. As a consequence, since the 1950s there have been concerns about the possibility of using reactors as a dual-use technology, whereby apparently peaceful technological development could serve as an approach to nuclear weapons capability... ...An additional concern with nuclear power plants is that if the by- products of nuclear fission—the nuclear waste generated by the plant— were to be unprotected it could be used as a radiological weapon, colloquially known as a "dirty bomb"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power > > BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote: > > > If you don't like my solutions then post your own. [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > - Show quoted text - IIRC the leader of Greenpeace has come out in favor of nuclear electrc power. No power source is without its downside, but if we don't come up soon with something other than oil, the civilization of the world is going to be set back 100 years, and the world's population is gong to shrink correspondingly. Many, many people are going to starve to death! Balance the risks against that possibility. Uncle Ben > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >> BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote >>> If you don't like my solutions then post your own. >> Already did that. >> Biodiesel for farming. >> LPG and CNG for cars. >> Exploit the oil sands and shale oil when the price of oil stays >> high enough for long enough to make that economically viable. >> Convert coal to liquid fuel when the price of oil stays high >> enough for long enough to make that economically viable. >> Replace coal fired power stations with nukes if you >> care about the CO2 emissions from power stations. >> Heat houses with electricty from nukes so the >> LPG and CNG can be used as a transport fuel. >> Generate hydrogen using nukes when the price of LPG and >> CNG is getting high enough to make that economically viable. >> Dont bother with solar when on the grid unless its cheaper than power >> from nukes and that has to allow for the fact that is mostly not available >> when its most in demand in most modern first world countrys. >> Use solar in some non grid situations like RVs running on biodiesel >> or LPG or CNG to run the engine. > I like your approach man. Some of your response > styles if tweaked could help you win alot of debates > easily with the facts and clear persuasive arguments. Dont need any of that, the list above is fine. > Maybe build up a text database with responses and data supporting arguments. Dont need any of that either. > How would you defend your position on nuclear > when someone comes up with these attacks? Point them at the French that have been doing it for a long time now and currently generate around 75% of their electricity that way. > ...Critics claim that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous The french havent even had a major nuclear accident. > and decline [66]energy source, Irrelevant to what is clearly possible. > with decreasing proportion of nuclear energy in power production, Irrelevant to what is clearly possible. > and dispute whether the risks can be reduced through new technology. The french havent even had a major nuclear accident. > Critics also point to the problem of storing radioactive waste, Completely routine to do that. > the potential for possibly severe radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage, The french havent even had a major nuclear accident. > the possibility of nuclear proliferation Irrelevant when used in the first world. > and the disadvantages of centralized electrical production... No such animal. Its the national grids that make it work so well. > ...The primary environmental impacts of nuclear power include Uranium mining, No worse than coal mining it replaces. > radioactive effluent emissions, Coal burning power stations emit even more because of the radioactive stuff in the coal they burn. > and waste heat... Thats not a bad thing, its a good thing in areas what heat anyway. > ...Greenpeace has produced a report titled An American Chernobyl: > Nuclear “Near Misses” at U.S. Reactors Since 1986 which "reveals that > nearly two hundred “near misses” to nuclear meltdowns have occurred in > the United States". Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies. > At almost 450 nuclear plants in the world that risk is greatly magnified, they say. Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies. > This is not to mention numerous incidents, many supposedly unreported, that have occurred. Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies. > Another report produced by Greenpeace called Nuclear Reactor Hazards: > Ongoing Dangers of Operating Nuclear Technology in the 21st Century > claims that risk of a major accident has increased in the past years... Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies. > ...Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons and related > technology to nations not recognized as "Nuclear Weapon States" by > the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Irrelevant when used in the first world and places like china and india that have those already. > Since the days of the Manhattan Project it has been known > that reactors could be used for weapons- development purposes > —the first nuclear reactors were developed for exactly this reason > —as the operation of a nuclear reactor converts U-238 into plutonium. Like I said, its desirable to develop nukes that cant be used for weapons production. > As a consequence, since the 1950s there have been concerns > about the possibility of using reactors as a dual-use technology, > whereby apparently peaceful technological development > could serve as an approach to nuclear weapons capability... Like I said, its desirable to develop nukes that cant be used for weapons production. > ...An additional concern with nuclear power plants is that if the > by- products of nuclear fission—the nuclear waste generated > by the plant— were to be unprotected it could be used as a > radiological weapon, colloquially known as a "dirty bomb"... Replacing the first world use of coal in electricity generation with nukes and the two most populous countrys, wouldnt make any difference to that because they have nukes already. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power > >> BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote > >>> If you don't like my solutions then post your own. [quoted text clipped - 128 lines] > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power Just checking. >>>> BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote >>>>> If you don't like my solutions then post your own. [quoted text clipped - 145 lines] > > Just checking. Modern electronic transfers make a lot more sense. > BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote: > > If you don't like my solutions then post your own. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > from nukes and that has to allow for the fact that is mostly not available > when its most in demand in most modern first world countrys. We don't bnother. That's why we built laser-guided bombs for the idiots in the first world counties, cruise missiles for the shale w.nks, AI++++ for the morons in washington, robots all the gas morons, and Wind Energy that works for the GM stooges, rather than solar. > Use solar in some non grid situations like RVs running on biodiesel or LPG or CNG to run the engine. On Jul 27, 7:19 pm, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote: > If you don't like my solutions then post your own. > > Either lead follow or get out of the way. > > Bret Cahill re: what to do immediately, then asap thereafter Immediately if not sooner, "explicitly incentivized" carpooling, which i've pushef for ad nauseam, though here's it again, two-thirds down the page http://hometown.aol.com/__121b_jp62FVbkQiq65VmOdYqjhKor5EGWYhVZLB6sTLqP/Ciij9hJ31n6zA== T. Boone Pickens' natural gas conversions for trucks, busses, and "goods carriers" appeals to me as something radical that can be done for sure Pickens' wind energy is ok by me too, tho "not in my backyard" people do seem to hate the ugly esthetic and whiny noise the apparently many universities that are concentrating on various alternative energy ideas is GOOD infrastructure improvements a-plenty re ALASKA-ARCTIC, FLORIDA, CALIF, ETAL these oughta at least allow maximal seismic and other oil & natual gas TESTINGS off their semi pristine coasts, and plans at least need be readied if the "energy war" requires such, and it currently appears to me that it certainly does, as we devolve into recession-depression <wacky playboy & genius Howard Hiughes should be brought back from the dead so he could invent some other drilling breakthrough> an efficient, safe nuclear power plant table model should be ready too, via virtual puterizing and super-computer fact sorting out and distilling it's time to employ quality personnel whom know how to do it w/o all the corruption, fuckk-ups and over runs the cost over runs appear to me to be njormative, disingenuous rip-off by the power companies, contractors and unions involved coal--->scrubbed semi-clean & gasolene, jet fuel, blah, blah ditto the similar above b.s. so,yeah, i am coping out in other words, i dunno since the voters have rejecected me (my innocuous ideas) about using prisoners and the chronically unemployed to make solar stuff two or three decades ago, then the "energy defense" or "energy war" is not my decision to make anyway as usual, usa society appears to me to be "gridlocked" in endless argumentation, admittedly all the sides have good ideas with contradictions > BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote >> If you don't like my solutions then post your own. >> Either lead follow or get out of the way. > re: what to do immediately, then asap thereafter > Immediately if not sooner, "explicitly incentivized" carpooling, No need to do that, it will happen when the price of gasoline gets high enough. > which i've pushef for ad nauseam, though here's it again, two-thirds down the page > http://hometown.aol.com/__121b_jp62FVbkQiq65VmOdYqjhKor5EGWYhVZLB6sTLqP/Ciij9hJ31n6zA== > T. Boone Pickens' natural gas conversions for trucks, busses, and "goods > carriers" appeals to me as something radical that can be done for sure Not practical with diesel engines. > Pickens' wind energy is ok by me too, No thanks, complete waste of time if you're on the grid. > tho "not in my backyard" people do seem to hate the ugly esthetic and whiny noise > the apparently many universities that are concentrating > on various alternative energy ideas is GOOD Nope, makes a lot more sense to move to nukes instead. > infrastructure improvements a-plenty > re ALASKA-ARCTIC, FLORIDA, CALIF, ETAL these oughta at least > allow maximal seismic and other oil & natual gas TESTINGS off their > semi pristine coasts, and plans at least need be readied if the > "energy war" requires such, and it currently appears to me > that it certainlydoes, as we devolve into recession-depression That last isnt going to happen. > <wacky playboy & genius Howard Hiughes should be brought back > from the dead so he could invent some other drilling breakthrough> Too dead. > an efficient, safe nuclear power plant table model should be ready too, Its here now. > via virtual puterizing and super-computer fact sorting out and > distilling it's time to employ quality personnel whom know how > to do it w/o all the corruption, fuckk-ups and over runs the cost > over runs appear to me to be njormative, disingenuous rip-off > by the power companies, contractors and unions involved What we do need is nukes that cant be used for producing weapons and those can be sold to the countrys that cant be trusted with nukes that can be used to produce weapons. > coal--->scrubbed semi-clean & gasolene, jet fuel, blah, blah ditto the similar above b.s. > so,yeah, i am coping out > in other words, i dunno > since the voters have rejecected me (my innocuous ideas) > about using prisoners and the chronically unemployed to > make solar stuff two or three decades ago, Nukes made a hell of a lot more sense then. > then the "energy defense" or "energy war" is not my decision to make anyway > as usual, usa society appears to me to be "gridlocked" in endless > argumentation, admittedly all the sides have good ideas with contradictions And it will all get sorted out when the oil price gets high enough. "Oil price maintenance" is as constitutional as everything else, so it's not per se a legalistic thing; thoough wouldn't the public de- ball any politician that endorses such ? though this article seems very sensible, it ain't gonna be, unless by intellectual subtefuge thru p.r. with convoluted machinations http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_31/b4094000658012.htm?chan=magaz ine+channel_top+stories If some farmer balks at electric tractors I just pull out my team of oxen and say, "go crazy." Then I stagger around behind the oxen for a few minutes. Then I tell them, "Cheap oil = easy street" "Expensive oil = full employment" You can get middle school students to shut up with that one. Bret Cahill > If some farmer balks at electric tractors I just pull out my team of oxen and say, "go crazy." > Then I stagger around behind the oxen for a few minutes. Been having those pathetic little drug crazed fantasys long, child ? > Then I tell them, > "Cheap oil = easy street" > "Expensive oil = full employment" > You can get middle school students to shut up with that one. Been having those pathetic little drug crazed fantasys long, child ? > > If some farmer balks at electric tractors I just pull out my team of oxen and say, "go crazy." > > Then I stagger around behind the oxen for a few minutes. > Been having those Pathetic. Nope. Ain't gonna happen. Bret Cahill > "Oil price maintenance" is as constitutional as everything > else, so it's not per se a legalistic thing; thoough wouldn't > the public de-ball any politician that endorses such ? Unlikely that any politician would actually be that stupid. > though this article seems very sensible, it ain't gonna be, unless > by intellectual subtefuge thru p.r. with convoluted machinations > http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_31/b4094000658012.htm?chan=magaz ine+channel_top+stories Taint gunna happen anyway. > Taint gunna happen anyway. Sticking yer head in the sand and denying reality does _not_ change reality. Bret Cahill >> Taint gunna happen anyway. > Sticking yer head in the sand and denying reality does _not_ change reality. You wouldnt know what reality was if it bit you on your lard arse, child. > You wouldnt know what reality was if it bit you on your lard arse, child. Show your calculations. Totally huge. Liar. Cite? Prove it. On Jul 27, 5:19 pm, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote: > If you don't like my solutions then post your own. > > Either lead follow or get out of the way. > > Bret Cahill Nuclear power. Follow along, or get out of the way. Nuclear proliferation is a non-issue for nuclear power. It is an issue in global affairs, but it is distinct from nuclear power. The number of nuclear power generating reactors needed by the Manhattan Project was zero. The only link between nuclear power and nuclear proliferation is as a supply of electricity to the enrichment plant. The israelis still have not built a power reactor, and the canadians have been looking at peaceful nuclear reactor applications for over sixty years-- with no bombs built! The science of waste disposal has long since been solved. The political problem of waste disposal is being held up by environmentalists for no good scientific reason-- they just want to stop nuclear power (and force us to burn coal). Nuclear power will allow you to power those electric tractors that you are so fond of. Without the cheap electricity that nuclear power is proven to be able to deliver, voters will have to choose between burning coal, or a drastically reduced standard of living. Short of an environmentalist dictatorship, we can be fairly certain of increased coal burning, with global warming prevention abandoned as 'too expensive'. The hydrogen economy is stymied by electricity being too expensive. Nuclear power will solve that problem. > > If you don't like my solutions then post your own. > > Either lead follow or get out of the way. > > Bret Cahill > Nuclear power. Show yer calculations including the cost of stainless steel. > Follow along, or get out of the way. Where's the leadership? > Nuclear proliferation is a non-issue for nuclear power. At least not in the U. S. where every WalMart has MX missiles. >�It is an > issue in global affairs, but it is distinct from nuclear power. � Yer floggin' a dead horse. > The > number of nuclear power generating reactors needed by the Manhattan [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have been looking at peaceful nuclear reactor applications for over > sixty years-- with no bombs built! Not that I have anything against nukes but if you digress too much then you won't git them to believe you are a leader. > The science of waste disposal has long since been solved. �The > political problem of waste disposal is being held up by > environmentalists for no good scientific reason-- they just want to > stop nuclear power (and force us to burn coal). > Nuclear power will allow you to power those electric tractors that you > are so fond of. Actually solar will do just fine. > Without the cheap electricity that nuclear power is proven to be able > to deliver, voters will have to choose between burning coal, or a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The hydrogen economy is stymied by electricity being too expensive. > Nuclear power will solve that problem. The real problem is a cheap battery. Bret Cahill >>> If you don't like my solutions then post your own. >>> Either lead follow or get out of the way. >> Nuclear power. > Show yer calculations including the cost of stainless steel. Dont need any of that, France has shown that its perfectly possible. >> Nuclear proliferation is a non-issue for nuclear power. > At least not in the U. S. where every WalMart has MX missiles. Not in any other first world country either. >> It is an issue in global affairs, but it is distinct from nuclear power. ? > Yer floggin' a dead horse. You wouldnt know what a dead horse was if one bit you on your lard arse. >> The number of nuclear power generating reactors needed by the >> Manhattan Project was zero. The only link between nuclear power >> and nuclear proliferation is as a supply of electricity to the enrichment >> plant. The israelis still have not built a power reactor, and the >> canadians have been looking at peaceful nuclear reactor >> applications for over sixty years-- with no bombs built! > Not that I have anything against nukes but if you digress too > much then you won't git them to believe you are a leader. You wouldnt know what a real leader was if one bit you on your lard arse. >> The science of waste disposal has long since been solved. >> The political problem of waste disposal is being held up by >> environmentalists for no good scientific reason-- they just >> want to stop nuclear power (and force us to burn coal). >> Nuclear power will allow you to power those >> electric tractors that you are so fond of. > Actually solar will do just fine. Nope. And anyone with a clue uses biodiesel to power farm machinery that cant be on the grid anyway. >> Without the cheap electricity that nuclear power is proven to be able >> to deliver, voters will have to choose between burning coal, or a >> drastically reduced standard of living. ?Short of an environmentalist >> dictatorship, we can be fairly certain of increased coal burning, >> with global warming prevention abandoned as 'too expensive'. >> The hydrogen economy is stymied by electricity being >> too expensive. Nuclear power will solve that problem. > The real problem is a cheap battery. Nope, batterys wont work with farm machinery that cant be on the grid. > >>> If you don't like my solutions then post your own. > >>> Either lead follow or get out of the way. > >> Nuclear power. Conan Obrien. > > Show yer calculations including the cost of stainless steel. > Dont need any of that, Show yer calculations. Nope. Ain't gonna happen Cite? > France has shown that its perfectly possible. Nope. The French have socialized medicine which means logic won't work in the U. S. > >> Nuclear proliferation is a non-issue for nuclear power. > > At least not in the U. S. where every WalMart has MX missiles. > Not in any other first world country either. Sorry Charlie. The U. S. has been 3rd world for quite some time. That's why you can't git no Pell grant to git educated. > >> It is an issue in global affairs, but it is distinct from nuclear power. ? > > Yer floggin' a dead horse. > You wouldnt know what a dead horse Totally huge! Nope. . . . > Nope, Yup. Show yer calculations. Bret Cahill On Jul 28, 10:53 pm, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote: > > > If you don't like my solutions then post your own. > > > Either lead follow or get out of the way. > > > Bret Cahill > > Nuclear power. > > Show yer calculations including the cost of stainless steel. Who are you to demand such? When you are challenged all that you do is bluster. The nuclear powerplants operating in the US are making huge piles of profits, while paying into the disposal pool. > > Follow along, or get out of the way. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Not that I have anything against nukes but if you digress too much > then you won't git them to believe you are a leader. if you have nothing against nukes, why are you not trying to promote it? > > The science of waste disposal has long since been solved. �The > > political problem of waste disposal is being held up by [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Actually solar will do just fine. The required collector area 4 square meters for every three kilowatt*hours, divided by the charge time in hours and divided again by the efficiency of the collector. A full battery charge must be collected within the time that a charge is used, or the tractor will be sidelined for lack of energy. The rooftops of the typical collection of farmhouse, barn, and outbuildings will not have enough area to support it all. > > Without the cheap electricity that nuclear power is proven to be able > > to deliver, voters will have to choose between burning coal, or a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The real problem is a cheap battery. A cheap battery is a useless lump without energy to charge it. Electrifying the transport sector will require a many-fold increase in the electrical power grid. Natural gas has the problem that it will also run out, so we are stuck with nuclear, so we may as well make a virtue out of necessity. > Bret Cahill On Jul 29, 3:56 am, "rlbell.ns...@gmail.com" <rlbell.ns...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 28, 10:53 pm, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > also run out, so we are stuck with nuclear, so we may as well make a > virtue out of necessity. The reason we don't have more nuclear plants has nothing to do with environmentalists, it has to do with economics and right-wing ideology. France has lots of nuclear plants, and that's because they were not tied to phony arguments about the wonderful private sector. If you want the gummint to subsidize nuclear plants (which it does, in various ways,) then you should hire the socialist Frenchies to build and run them in their terribly inefficient socialist top-down regulated and uniform manner. And now that I think about it, I guess they aren't so inefficient, since they have no problem relying on nuclear power for what---80% of their electricity? The other problem that you have with nuclear as a solution to CO2 or other issues is that you just can't build the things fast enough, even if you streamline the regulatory process. You have to get an enormous amount of capital together, you need stuff like cement (big CO2 source), you need qualified welders, and on and on. In the short term of 20-30 years the absolute easiest, cheapest and largest improvement would come from conservation and efficiency. No need for new tech. Oh yeah and maybe some reduction in birth rates. -tg > > Bret Cahill > rlbell.ns...@gmail.com <rlbell.ns...@gmail.com> wrote >> BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote >>>>> If you don't like my solutions then post your own. >>>>> Either lead follow or get out of the way. >>>> Nuclear power. >>> Show yer calculations including the cost of stainless steel. >> Who are you to demand such? When you are challenged all that you do is bluster. >> The nuclear powerplants operating in the US are making >> huge piles of profits, while paying into the disposal pool. And the obvious approach on disposal is to design them so they can be filled with concrete etc when they have passed their useby date and leave them where they be and build the new one adjacent. >>>> Follow along, or get out of the way. >>> Where's the leadership? >>>> Nuclear proliferation is a non-issue for nuclear power. >>> At least not in the U. S. where every WalMart has MX missiles. >>>> It is an issue in global affairs, but it is distinct from nuclear power. ? >>> Yer floggin' a dead horse. >>>> The number of nuclear power generating reactors needed by the Manhattan >>>> Project was zero. ?The only link between nuclear power and nuclear >>>> proliferation is as a supply of electricity to the enrichment >>>> plant. The israelis still have not built a power reactor, and the >>>> canadians have been looking at peaceful nuclear reactor >>>> applications for over sixty years-- with no bombs built! >>> Not that I have anything against nukes but if you digress too much >>> then you won't git them to believe you are a leader. >> if you have nothing against nukes, why are you not trying to promote it? >>>> The science of waste disposal has long since been solved. ?The >>>> political problem of waste disposal is being held up by >>>> environmentalists for no good scientific reason-- they just want to >>>> stop nuclear power (and force us to burn coal). >>>> Nuclear power will allow you to power those electric tractors that >>>> you are so fond of. >>> Actually solar will do just fine. >> The required collector area 4 square meters for every three >> kilowatt*hours, divided by the charge time in hours and divided again [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> collection of farmhouse, barn, and outbuildings will not have enough >> area to support it all. >>>> Without the cheap electricity that nuclear power is proven to be >>>> able to deliver, voters will have to choose between burning coal, >>>> or a drastically reduced standard of living. ?Short of an >>>> environmentalist dictatorship, we can be fairly certain of >>>> increased coal burning, with global warming prevention abandoned >>>> as 'too expensive'. >>>> The hydrogen economy is stymied by electricity being too expensive. >>>> Nuclear power will solve that problem. >>> The real problem is a cheap battery. >> A cheap battery is a useless lump without energy to charge it. >> Electrifying the transport sector will require a many-fold increase >> in the electrical power grid. Natural gas has the problem that it >> will also run out, so we are stuck with nuclear, so we may as well >> make a virtue out of necessity. > The reason we don't have more nuclear plants has nothing to do with > environmentalists, it has to do with economics and right-wing ideology. It has more to do with a mindless reaction to 3 mile island. > France has lots of nuclear plants, and that's because they were > not tied to phony arguments about the wonderful private sector. Nope, because they have fewer viable alternatives. Japan too. > If you want the gummint to subsidize nuclear plants (which > it does, in various ways,) then you should hire the socialist > Frenchies to build and run them in their terribly inefficient > socialist top-down regulated and uniform manner. Or dont bother with the socialists and do it the way the Japs did it with the rightards doing it. > And now that I think about it, I guess they aren't so > inefficient, since they have no problem relying on > nuclear power for what---80% of their electricity? > The other problem that you have with nuclear as a solution > to CO2 or other issues is that you just can't build the things > fast enough, even if you streamline the regulatory process. Wrong, the frogs have managed to do that fine. > You have to get an enormous amount of capital together, Nope. > you need stuff like cement (big CO2 source), Nothing like the coal fired power station it replaces would be. > you need qualified welders, It was perfectly possible to train far more of those than would ever be needed for nukes during WW2. Many of them women even. > and on and on. Nope, there is no on and on. > In the short term of 20-30 years the absolute easiest, > cheapest and largest improvement would come from > conservation and efficiency. No need for new tech. No need for new tech with nukes either. > Oh yeah and maybe some reduction in birth rates. Nope, not one modern first world country is even self replacing on population now if you take out migration. > Nope, there is no on and on. Show your calculations. Pathetic. Ain't gonna happen Nuke > > Nope, there is no on and on. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Nuke --- Dodge. JF > > Nope, there is no on and on. > > Show your calculations. Stop being such a hypocrite. You cannot demand from others what you never provide, yourself. When you give sources for your bald assertions, then you can demand specificity and hard numbers from others. Right now, everytime you demand to see the calculations, it is an instance of the pot calling the kettle black. You do want people to not dismiss you out of hand? > Pathetic. > > Ain't gonna happen > > Nuke > You do want people to not dismiss you out of hand? BINGO! This guy must have an IQ above single digits! He figgered it out! Here, I'll spell out the obvious: If you don't like my posts, then don't read them. Don't respond to them. Go to alt.conspiracy with all the other nut jobs. Bret Cahill >> You do want people to not dismiss you out of hand? > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Go to alt.conspiracy with all the other nut jobs. --- Guess what, Brat? This is USENET (Well, it is for those of us who don't play baby games through Google groups) where anyone is free to read your posts and, if they feel like it, to comment in any way they want to. And guess what else? There's not one goddam thing you can do about it except jump up and down and whine and cry and stamp your little feet and hold your breath until you turn blue in the face, LOL! JF > >> You do want people to not dismiss you out of hand? > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > >Go to alt.conspiracy with all the other nut jobs. > This is USENET Cite? Show your work. Huge. >>> You do want people to not dismiss you out of hand? >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > JF Er, why don't y'all just plonk him...? You know you can't change his mind, which means that trying to do so is a waste of time and energy. Life is too short to waste it on such unconstructive games - and every time you reply, it means you've allowed him ot get you worked up to some degree, and no matter how small that degree migh tbe, it means you're allowing him to manipulate you into playing his games on his terms. Does that really make any sense? He keeps telling people to stop reading his posts. I figure that the only polite (and sensible) thing to do is oblige him. > Er, why don't y'all just plonk him...? Exactly! I'm opposed to censorship so we all know I cannot eliminate my readership altogether. But if we all work together we can reduce it. Now this will take will power in the beginning but after a couple of weeks you won't even notice it. Bret Cahill >>>> You do want people to not dismiss you out of hand? >>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >Er, why don't y'all just plonk him...? --- I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but the reason I don't is because I'm having fun rattling his cage. Cruel, perhaps, but these uppity monkeys have to be reminded of their place, dontcha know. ;) --- >You know you can't change his mind, which means that trying to do so is a >waste of time and energy. --- Au contraire! Lately he's taken to replying to posts to which he can't refute with: "Huge. Cite? Show your calculations." Or variants thereof. Clearly a sign of panic leading to retreat, a severance of diplomatic ties, and perhaps the first sign of a crack in the dam... --- >Life is too short to waste it on such unconstructive games --- But I enjoy the sport of it and don't mind using up some of my life jousting, so what's wrong with that? --- > - and every time you reply, it means you've allowed >him ot get you worked up to some degree, and no matter how small that >degree migh tbe, it means you're allowing him to manipulate you into >playing his games on his terms. Does that really make any sense? --- What makes you think _I'm_ not the troll? --- >He keeps telling people to stop reading his posts. I figure that the only >polite (and sensible) thing to do is oblige him. --- It would be if he meant it, but what he's really saying is: "Don't post if you disagree with me." JF [...] >>Er, why don't y'all just plonk him...? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Cruel, perhaps, but these uppity monkeys have to be reminded of their > place, dontcha know. ;) Fair enough ;) AS long as it's entertaining, hey, go for it <L!> > --- > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Clearly a sign of panic leading to retreat, a severance of diplomatic > ties, and perhaps the first sign of a crack in the dam... I've seen those. I just resent the time it tkaes to DL them, open them in hopes fo seeing useful info, and having it just bedrivel. I'm inpatient that way ;) > --- > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > But I enjoy the sport of it and don't mind using up some of my life > jousting, so what's wrong with that? Nothing, as long as you know what you're doing, why you're doing it, and having fun ;) I've just seen too many folks who get caught up in this sort of thing, so that was my Obsessive Cautionary Note. But, nah, whatever people have *fun* doing, hey, whatever floats the proverbial boat ;) > --- > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > --- > What makes you think _I'm_ not the troll? Because: - I've seen you provide good info; - your posts tend to be well-written; - if someone disagrees with something you wrote, you don't just tell them they're "stupid". Probably a few more... > --- > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > JF True, but I don't disagree with him so much as I find him just plain disagreeable. Some of my best friens, and most interesting exchanges, have started out as a disagrrement, but that's because those disagreements became a discussion, rather than disintegrating into name- calling - I find name-calling diagreeable, because it's irrational, meaningless, and unconstructive. But I'm not in any way telling anyone what to do per se, just stating (in my admittedly imperfect and socially-chllenged way!) what the situation seems to me to be, just in case it might help someone else. OK, I'll get back down off my box now... I'm still waiting for an explanation on how anyone could believe that circular furrows are impossible. Bret Cahill > >>>> You do want people to not dismiss you out of hand? > [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > >He keeps telling people to stop reading his posts. �I figure that the only > >polite (and sensible) thing to do is oblige him. > It would be if he meant it, but what he's really saying is: "Don't > post if you disagree with me." I've been mocking you for two days and you are too clueless to figure it out. LOL! Cite? Show your calculations. >> >He keeps telling people to stop reading his posts. ?I figure that the only >> >polite (and sensible) thing to do is oblige him. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Show your calculations. --- Geez, Brat, good job! And done so cleverly, I might add! JF On Jul 29, 1:34 pm, "rlbell.ns...@gmail.com" <rlbell.ns...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Nope, there is no on and on. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You do want people to not dismiss you out of hand? No, he DOES want people to dismiss him out of hand. He is a sockpuppet for the corpwhore neoconspiracy, who want leftards to be laughingstocks. >> The reason we don't have more nuclear plants has nothing to do with >> environmentalists, it has to do with economics and right-wing ideology. > >It has more to do with a mindless reaction to 3 mile island. Let's see.. TMI Unit 2 went into meltdown less than four months after going on-line for the first time!!!.. (Dec 1978 ->March 1979).. That's one hell of a rate of return.. NOT... And the operators released over two million curries into the local environment. Sending several thousand area residents to early deaths and scores of others facing increased occurances of radiation related illnesses. http://www.tmia.com/history/tmilegalhistory.html > And the operators released over two million curries into the local > environment. Sending several thousand area residents to early deaths Must have been shocking Indian cooks they used ! My data (American Academy of Sciences) says there are NO early deaths predicted in the general population surrounding TMI IIRC. I suspect some of the operators may not be so lucky. Graham >> And the operators released over two million curries into the local >> environment. Sending several thousand area residents to early deaths > >Must have been shocking Indian cooks they used ! > >My data (American Academy of Sciences) says there are NO early deaths ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ And what organization is that.. P.S.. The NAS changed their basic position on ionizing radiation in 2005.. Has anyone bothered to take a second look since then??? >predicted i ^^^^^^^^^^ Hah... And a doubling of the neonatal mortality rate isn't a clue?? That's over a hundred deaths just in that one statistic.. http://www.tmia.com/history/tmilegalhistory.html >>> And the operators released over two million curries into the >>> local environment. Sending several thousand area residents to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Hah... And a doubling of the neonatal mortality rate isn't a clue?? Pure fantasy. That wasnt due to TMI. > That's over a hundred deaths just in that one statistic.. Pity it wasnt due to TMI. That wasnt even seen with Chernobyle. > http://www.tmia.com/history/tmilegalhistory.html > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> The reason we don't have more nuclear plants has nothing to do with >>> environmentalists, it has to do with economics and right-wing ideology. >> It has more to do with a mindless reaction to 3 mile island. > Let's see.. > TMI Unit 2 went into meltdown less than four months after > going on-line for the first time!!!.. (Dec 1978 ->March 1979).. > That's one hell of a rate of return.. NOT... And the french had enough of a clue to produce 80% of their electricity using nukes anyway and got a hell of a lot of advantages from doing that. We werent actually stupid enough to give up on widebody aircraft when we did have a few of them go bang and produce a lousy rate of return. > And the operators released over two million curries into the local environment. Fart in the bath compared with what all those coal fired power stations are doing. And its India that produces most curries, TMI produced curies. > Sending several thousand area residents to early deaths Bare faced pig ignorant lie. > and scores of others facing increased occurances of radiation related illnesses. Bare faced pig ignorant lie. And even if that was true, the coal fired power stations do that in spades anyway. > http://www.tmia.com/history/tmilegalhistory.html >> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >Bare faced pig ignorant lie. Just the truth... All previous predictions & claims, (prior to 2005), based on exposure to ionizing radiation were INVALIDATED by the NAS's no threshold dose adoption, The new position also recognized that many other aliments can be the result of ionizing radiation exposure. > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> The reason we don't have more nuclear plants has nothing to do with >>>>> environmentalists, it has to do with economics and right-wing ideology. >>>> It has more to do with a mindless reaction to 3 mile island. >>> Let's see.. >>> TMI Unit 2 went into meltdown less than four months after >>> going on-line for the first time!!!.. (Dec 1978 ->March 1979).. >>> That's one hell of a rate of return.. NOT... >> And the french had enough of a clue to produce 80% of their electricity >> using nukes anyway and got a hell of a lot of advantages from doing that. >> We werent actually stupid enough to give up on widebody aircraft when >> we did have a few of them go bang and produce a lousy rate of return. >>> And the operators released over two million curries into the local environment. >> Fart in the bath compared with what all those coal fired power stations are doing. >> And its India that produces most curries, TMI produced curies. >>> Sending several thousand area residents to early deaths >> Bare faced pig ignorant lie. >>> and scores of others facing increased occurances of radiation related illnesses. >> Bare faced pig ignorant lie. > Just the truth... You're lying, again. > All previous predictions & claims, (prior to 2005), based on exposure to > ionizing radiation were INVALIDATED by the NAS's no threshold dose adoption, Irrelevant to your bare faced lie about actual deaths seen. > The new position also recognized that many other > aliments can be the result of ionizing radiation exposure. Pity that coal fired power stations put out FAR more of that than TMI ever did. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.