TXU Orders 2 Mitsubishi Heavy Reactors for Dallas under new buyers.
Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring
* 2 x 1,700 MW = 3,400 MW
* $5.17 billion deal.
* $1.52/watt reactors only, no buildings, power transmission included.
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=185&sid=1087589
TXU Orders 2 Mitsubishi Heavy Reactors
Mar 14th - 10:03am
TOKYO (AP) - Japan's largest heavy machinery maker Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries Ltd. said Wednesday it has received an order for two
nuclear reactors from U.S. electric utility TXU Corp., the first
export deal of equipment made by a Japanese company.
Mitsubishi Heavy will provide two US-APWRs, its new pressurized water
reactor with 1,700 megawatt-hours of generation capacity each, for
TXU's nuclear power plant in the suburbs of Dallas, the Japanese
manufacturer said in a statement.
It's the first time a Japanese company has received an order from
abroad for a nuclear power reactor made in Japan, said MHI spokesman
Kengo Tatsukawa.
Tatsukawa said the company could not disclose the amount of the deal
because of "confidentiality rule" with the client.
The Nikkei business newspaper said the combined value is estimated at
600 billion yen ($5.17 billion).
TXU, the largest power operator in Texas, formally notified its
reactor selection to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Friday,
the statement said. The U.S. power operator plans to start commercial
operations at the plant with new reactors starting from 2015 to 2020,
it said.
Tokyo-based Mitsubish Heavy must submit to the NRC its formal
application for the reactor's design certification by the end of this
year.
TXU announced Feb. 26 it had signed a deal to be acquired by private
equity firms for $32 billion, in what would be what would be the
largest private buyout in U.S. history. The Securities and Exchange
Commission has filed a civil lawsuit in federal court in Chicago
alleging illegal insider trading in connection with the $69.25-per-
share buyout deal led by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and Texas
Pacific Group.
The buyers have promised to drop plans for eight proposed coal-burning
plants that were opposed by environmentalists and city leaders in
Dallas and Houston. They will, however, try to go ahead with three
other coal-fired plants proposed for central Texas.
The 1979 partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in
Pennsylvania led to a virtual halt in new plant construction in the
United States. There are now about 100 nuclear plants in the U.S.,
producing about 20 percent of the country's electricity.
But fears of global warming and the rising cost of natural gas and
coal may finally change the image of nuclear power.
In August 2005, President Bush signed an energy bill that streamlines
applications and offers loan incentives, tax credits and federal
insurance for new plants.
Mitsubishi estimates that "a few dozen" nuclear plants will be built
in the U.S. by around 2030.
beavith
huh! how's about THAT!
i post this link first and beat mrs science by 8 minutes.
at least you could credit me for spotting it.
On 18 Mar 2007 20:46:48 -0700, "Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring"
<Crook...@ScienceCop.info> wrote:
>Key Points:
>* 2 x 1,700 MW = 3,400 MW
>* $5.17 billion deal.
>* $1.52/watt reactors only, no buildings, power transmission included.
go figure. rational investors will buy nukes for big $ and they
aren't "mobilizing" towards your H2 PV dystopia.
why's that?
Joe Fischer
<Crook...@ScienceCop.info> wrote:
>Key Points:
>* 2 x 1,700 MW = 3,400 MW
>* $5.17 billion deal.
>* $1.52/watt reactors only, no buildings, power transmission included.
>
>http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=185&sid=1087589
>
>TXU Orders 2 Mitsubishi Heavy Reactors
>Mar 14th - 10:03am
>
>TOKYO (AP) - Japan's largest heavy machinery maker Mitsubishi Heavy
>Industries Ltd. said Wednesday it has received an order for two
>nuclear reactors from U.S. electric utility TXU Corp., the first
>export deal of equipment made by a Japanese company.
>
>Mitsubishi Heavy will provide two US-APWRs, its new pressurized water
>reactor with 1,700 megawatt-hours of generation capacity each, for
>TXU's nuclear power plant in the suburbs of Dallas, the Japanese
>manufacturer said in a statement.
Is that 1,700 megawatt-hours per year, or a typo?
Joe Fischer
Ray Lopez Kiddie-Porn@NAMBLA.org
> huh! how's about THAT!
>
> i post this link first and beat mrs science by 8 minutes.
>
> at least you could credit me for spotting it.
>
> On 18 Mar 2007 20:46:48 -0700, "Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring"
>
> >Key Points:
> >* 2 x 1,700 MW = 3,400 MW
> >* $5.17 billion deal.
> >* $1.52/watt reactors only, no buildings, power transmission included.
>
> go figure. rational investors will buy nukes for big $ and they
> aren't "mobilizing" towards your H2 PV dystopia.
>
> why's that?
Because the low-lying fruit is the $15bn free money that in 2005 Bush/
RepigglyKKKans put in the pig trough for the first 8 nuke buyers.
You are given credit for not posting the link in a new thread and
extra credit for not picking out key points to put up top.
That's $15bn welfare to nukes that didn't go to Exxon competition of
distributed fuel and light. Would they have bought if it was coming
out of their pockets? If they had to pay insurance full liability at
market rates? If they had to figure out waste disposal? Good thing we
got the Reigs out before they could do more harm -- never gonna fall
for that congame again.
>
> >http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=185&sid=1087589
Ray Lopez Kiddie-Porn@NAMBLA.org
It's presumably a typo, 17 MW instantaneous peak power output. Figure
90% capacity factor. TXU already has nukes in Texas.
nada
> huh! how's about THAT!
>
> i post this link first and beat mrs science by 8 minutes.
>
> at least you could credit me for spotting it.
>
> On 18 Mar 2007 20:46:48 -0700, "Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring"
>
> >Key Points:
> >* 2 x 1,700 MW = 3,400 MW
> >* $5.17 billion deal.
> >* $1.52/watt reactors only, no buildings, power transmission included.
>
> go figure. rational investors will buy nukes for big $ and they
> aren't "mobilizing" towards your H2 PV dystopia.
>
> why's that?
>
>
>
> >http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=185&sid=1087589
Only for the first 6 nukes build. ALL waste management is written in
to the costs of the nukes (seeing as only nuclear has to manage ALL
it's wastes and decommissioning, carbon emitters and PV/wind do not).
It's a CHEAP deal and any state would be glad to have it. And it does
include buildings since the "buildings" are all part of the integrated
AP-1000 or Toshiba units. The problem is that the subsidies only exit
for the first few units build, that is, 6 out of the 32 proposed new
ones.
Texas is rapidly upgrading all it's transmission lines *anyway*. Part
of the planning is over capacity so that new units built near the
lines can be plugged in at relatively little expense.
The Toshiba units are 1700 MWs per unit.
What the US needs to do, is to "assume responsibility" for building
nukes and just build them...compared to what the war in Iraq costs, we
could of replaced *half* of all coal plants in the US with clean
nuclear, reprocessing facilities, etc.
Don Lancaster
Mean time between meltdowns.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Arnold Walker
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:5681l8F...@mid.individual.net...
> Joe Fischer wrote:
>> On 18 Mar 2007 20:46:48 -0700, "Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring"
>> <Crook...@ScienceCop.info> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Key Points:
>>>* 2 x 1,700 MW = 3,400 MW
>>>* $5.17 billion deal.
>>>* $1.52/watt reactors only, no buildings, power transmission included.
>>>
>>>http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=185&sid=1087589
>>>
>>>TXU Orders 2 Mitsubishi Heavy Reactors
>>>Mar 14th - 10:03am
>>>
>>>TOKYO (AP) - Japan's largest heavy machinery maker Mitsubishi Heavy
>>>Industries Ltd. said Wednesday it has received an order for two
>>>nuclear reactors from U.S. electric utility TXU Corp., the first
>>>export deal of equipment made by a Japanese company.
>>>
>>>Mitsubishi Heavy will provide two US-APWRs, its new pressurized water
>>>reactor with 1,700 megawatt-hours of generation capacity each, for
>>>TXU's nuclear power plant in the suburbs of Dallas, the Japanese
>>>manufacturer said in a statement.
>>
>>
>> Is that 1,700 megawatt-hours per year, or a typo?
>>
>> Joe Fischer
>>
>
> Mean time between meltdowns.
How many reactors are running.....
How many actually melted down.....
The average time period ,that it took after construction to reach a
meltdown....
In other words, an insurance actuallary table like you have on storm damage
or fire on your business or house.
You know buildings are flatten by disaster.........but at what level do you
start worrying about the doghouse or kids
getting hit by a lightening bolt.
Now ......is your logic and math at the same level on a nuke disaster.
Somehow I have trouble believing that it is....
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
nada
wrote:
> "Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5681l8F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > Joe Fischer wrote:
> >> On 18 Mar 2007 20:46:48 -0700, "Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring"
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
What would you base you model on? Generation II reactors? The ones
that TXU have offered are Generation III reactors, a whole order of
magnitude safer that the 443 reactors world wide (which, one should
not, have *never* melted down).
David
Night of the Living Crackpots
Socialist: "What the US needs to do, is to "assume responsibility" for
Bill Ward
Relax - it's Don. He knows, he just never passes up a chance for a
wisecrack.
Maximust
Sounds like a great idea. Those private enterprises won't build nuke plants
without government fascist subsidies, so who not cut out the fat-ass middleman
and build them ourselves?
Invasion of the Crackpots
That's not what he said. The SOCIALIST called for big gommint to fund
the nukes.
nada
Regardless...as Bill said, cut out the middlemen. Better a socialist
controlled system based on US high tech facilities than the
anarchistic capitalist electrical system we've known to grow and love.
Seriously, there is a series of things the US can do now, including
the funding of municipal utility and state utility districts that
already exist. Public power *right now* provides cheaper and safer
power than private utilities.
Even with that, I can see loan guarantees and public funding of
insurance to make it even cheaper for the consumer. Even private
capitalist rate-based fees would be good. I'm opposed, however, to the
idea of rate increases to subsidize the building of any power system
until those systems go on line.
nada
<Crackpot.Invad...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote:
Additionally, I would add the model for this is France, with a state
owned electrical grid and nuclear power industry (now, unfortunately,
being privatized) that is the safest and cheapest in the world. If you
want a "socialist" model, there it is.
David
Crackpot Zombie Hordes
Asshole. You couldn't understand the answer.
daestrom
"Ray Lopez Kiddi...@NAMBLA.org" <Exxon.RI...@ecovilliage.us> wrote
in message news:1174278263.7...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Typo? Yes. 17 MW peak power? No.
The units are rated at 1700 MW output when operating at full power. If they
take about 30 days every two years to refuel, they will manage something
like >95% capacity factor after the first couple of years of operation (not
many APWR's operating yet, bound to be some 'unplanned shutdowns').
So between the two of them, that could be about 28 Tera-Watt-hours of energy
per year (about 0.1 exaJoules). Not to shabby by anyone's measurement.
How many windmills at 2.5 MW a piece would be needed to replace that? I
make it out to be about 4300.
daestrom
Exxon's Dick Pumping Hanson's Mouth
wrote:
> "Ray Lopez Kiddie-P...@NAMBLA.org" <Exxon.RICO.Fra...@ecovilliage.us> wrote
> in messagenews:1174278263.7...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Bad math.
3,221 is the correct answer, depending on where the wind turbines are
emplaced using normal average numbers from EIA and NREL. for power
capacity and average production.
The wind machines can be going up by two years and making power for
six years before the earliest date of the nuke range, 2015, and 11
years if the later date of 2020 is hit instead. In the six years to
the first watt of nuke power the wind turbanes would have already
generated retail priced $4,996,620,000 dime-a-kilowatt of economic
activity, and nearly double that if the nukes hit the later startup
date.
nada
Not at the 24% capacity windmills actually produce at.
David
Night of the Living Crackpots
Capacity factor was underestimated. With more than a decade of
widespread experience, well placed wind generation is typically 38% of
capacity per year.
Stop using obsolete information and update your defective memory
banks.
nada
Stop using old information for nuclear power builds then....really,
its bullshit to say %38 is "typical", a few eurpean wind farms got
that. The true measure is closer to 20-25%
(http://www.britishwindenergy.co.uk/ref/tech.html)
David
Invasion of the Crackpots
People know more now. Update your databanks, they are obsolete. 38%
capacity factor is used today in 2007 for correctly sited wind
generators. You can put them places that they don't do as well, but
why would you? If a FEW wind farms get that 38%, then all wind farms
would get it if the put the generators where the wind is instead of
putting them somewhere else. I'm not going to stop you from putting
your windmills in caves, if that's your decision, just don't cite
caves as "average".
Once people learn, then they have learned. Your turn to learn.
nada
You have to go by the current average and what they are planning,
which is not 38 or even close to that capacity. But let's make it an
even 40%. This mean to to get 1000 MWs you need to build 2500 MWs of
capacity to assure getting 1000 MWs. Secondly, Denmark pretty much
proved one can't go much beyond 25% of total grid supply before the
whole grid destabilizes. Thirdly, of course, for every MW of wind you
need at least the same MWs (some argue it's to 2 to 1) of on demand
power, meaning fossil or nuclear or hydro).
david
Crackpot Hanson's Late Welfare Check
No, you get 2500 MWs 40% of the time. Big difference.
> Secondly, Denmark pretty much
> proved one can't go much beyond 25% of total grid supply before the
> whole grid destabilizes.
No they didn't. You are a chronic liar.
> Thirdly, of course, for every MW of wind you
> need at least the same MWs (some argue it's to 2 to 1) of on demand
> power, meaning fossil or nuclear or hydro).
>
> david
No you don't. You need complementary power or storage. You gave three
options among many. You also failed to point out that all of your
options have very severe drawbacks. Lies by commision, lies by
ommission of full data.
nada
Then counter it instead throwing out 'liar' everytime you run into a
wall. The Danish energy commission understand this. I've talked with
them about it...they initially want a 50% wind slice of the energy
load. they know they cant get this and not throw the whole grid into a
whipsaw...when the wind dies, they need back up...they KNOW it's
nuclear and coal right now, and hydro from Sweden. All expansion has
to be met by on demand. They LIKE the fact that French nuclear
subsidizes their expensive wind. If that is what he Danes what, it's
not a problem. They know, I know it, and you should too. (and they
have no plans to now to go to 50%, it's out the window).
david
dez...@usa.net
Well, sweedish hydro provides the dispatchable demand. Without hydro
or some sort of storage it just wouldnt work. As is the danes allready
have the highest electricity prices in europe.
Crackpot Hanson's Late Welfare Check
> > > You have to go by the current average and what they are planning,
> > > which is not 38 or even close to that capacity. But let's make it an
> > > even 40%. This mean to to get 1000 MWs you need to build 2500 MWs of
> > > capacity to assure getting 1000 MWs.
>
> > No, you get 2500 MWs 40% of the time. Big difference.
>
> > > Secondly, Denmark pretty much
> > > proved one can't go much beyond 25% of total grid supply before the
> > > whole grid destabilizes.
>
> > No they didn't. You are a chronic liar.
>
> > > Thirdly, of course, for every MW of wind you
> > > need at least the same MWs (some argue it's to 2 to 1) of on demand
> > > power, meaning fossil or nuclear or hydro).
>
> > > david
>
> > No you don't. You need complementary power or storage. You gave three
> > options among many. You also failed to point out that all of your
> > options have very severe drawbacks. Lies by commision, lies by
> > ommission of full data.
>
> Then counter it instead throwing out 'liar' everytime you run into a
> wall.
Nope. Liars are time wasters. I don't owe you an education in honesty.
> The Danish energy commission understand this. I've talked with
> them about it...they initially want a 50% wind slice of the energy
> load. they know they cant get this and not throw the whole grid into a
> whipsaw...when the wind dies, they need back up...they KNOW it's
> nuclear and coal right now, and hydro from Sweden.
Liars can lie about faraway places. Big waste of time to believe a
known liar's statements on anything, let alone personal communications
with "them" ("I've talked with THEM about it").
So happens I read the proposals for future power options, so I'm not
completely ignorant. Denmark both buys and sells power. Germany buys
from them, Sweden sells to them. If people want to Balkanize the power
grids by artificial borders, I guess that's their business.
Denmark is possibly unique in that most of their coal plants are small
and locallized, a lot like the USA 50 years ago in that respect where
every city had it's power plants. Unlike other times and places, the
local powerplants are 80% co-generation plants that pipe steam heat to
the circle of homes and businesses around them, which means the bang
for the buck, and the bang for the CO2 emissions, are 70% to 80% net
total efficiency of using all the energy in the coal.
> All expansion has
> to be met by on demand. They LIKE the fact that French nuclear
> subsidizes their expensive wind. If that is what he Danes what, it's
> not a problem. They know, I know it, and you should too. (and they
> have no plans to now to go to 50%, it's out the window).
>
> david
Too bad for them. Idiots.
hhc...@yahoo.com
sad part is that they are purchasing foreign made reactors rather than
the many proven American products currently available.
What is sad is that most of the 'Greenies' and 'Global Warming'
psychos either slept through or never matriculated in any class in
physical, biological, or earth science, and don't yet realize the
manifold benefits of nuclear generated power. Even Al Gore (with his
$2,000/month energy bill for his home, and gaslights burning outside
his estate for ambience 24/365) doesn't have a clue. Evedently good
old Al, with his never-ending political aspirations didn't manage to
remain awake during Biology 101 and Physics 101, but paid close
attention in Politics 101.
Al, in his pathetic attempt to climb back into the political
limelight, today claimed before congress that we need to cut CO2 and
water vapor emissions by 50%, a laudable goal, unless you are
sufficiently educated to know that most of these objectionable
emissions come from vertibrate life on earch, plus decomposition of
organic waste material such as leaf droppings.
Poor ignorant Al, who doesn't yet realize that his speech today
mandated a 50% reduction of all human and animal life on earth!
Research the numbers, and you'll find that all of our energy
industries combined do not rival even a fraction of the source of the
greenhouse gasses produced on earth. Any real scholar can tell you
that it's the earth's increasing overpopulation, combined with the
decimation of the carbon reclaimers in the forests and seas that is
the problem. Run the numbers and you will find that industry causes
less than 5% of the total problem. Nuclear based energy sources could
eliminate even most of this 5%, if in fact a global warming issue even
exists (which many of most physical scientists seriously doubt).
Now to you 'Greenies, I will pose a simply challenge which with
Google's help shouldn't take you long to navigate. That is, research
the number of large mammals on the earth, including people. Now
multiple that number with the Btus that earch mamal consmes dissipates
in a given day, then the volume of CO2 and water vapor collectively
produced. (Let's for now ignore the decompositon of forest droppings.)
Next, compare this figure with all of the CO2 and water vapor produced
by all industrial processes combined.
You will find that, if indeed there is a CO2 and water vapor excess
present that contributes to global warming, you will likely see that
it is more due to the defoliation of the earth and the contamination
of the sea than to any other cause. The lack of balance here is,
numerically trivial, but desperate politicians like Al Gore base all
of their political aspirations on making you believe that it is a
vital issue and that they, and as totally clueless and hypocritical as
they are, wish you to believe that they can solve this non-present
problem.
Al, get the Hell out of here, and take the beaten horse that you rode
in on with you. For that matter, give George W. a ride with you.
Our nation deserves better than either of these two spoiled and
clueless idiots.
Harry C.
Hanson the Trained Dancing Monkey
> clueless idiots.
>
> Harry C.
Crackpot Harry Conover. Ignore.
Joe Fischer
>You will find that, if indeed there is a CO2 and water vapor excess
>present that contributes to global warming, you will likely see that
>it is more due to the defoliation of the earth and the contamination
>of the sea than to any other cause. The lack of balance here is,
>numerically trivial, but desperate politicians like Al Gore base all
>of their political aspirations on making you believe that it is a
>vital issue and that they, and as totally clueless and hypocritical as
>they are, wish you to believe that they can solve this non-present
>problem.
Only if all of us give them money.
>Al, get the Hell out of here, and take the beaten horse that you rode
>in on with you. For that matter, give George W. a ride with you.
>
>Our nation deserves better than either of these two spoiled and
>clueless idiots.
>Harry C.
They have the concensus of scientists. :-(
Joe Fischer
T. Keating
>Thank God, it's about time that the US came to its senses! The only
>sad part is that they are purchasing foreign made reactors rather than
>the many proven American products currently available.
>
>What is sad is that most of the 'Greenies' and 'Global Warming'
>psychos
I see that you're labeling some of the most sane people on earth as
pxxxxxx, what does that make you? (genocidal maniac??)
As for nuclear power, limited recoverable fuel supply which will
eventually force usage of renewables ANYWAY. None of them are breeder
types which operate much closer to the edge (of meltdown with liquid
metal moderators), and thusly exactly ZERO(0) of them are currently
operating commercially.
Lastly, nuclear power reactors will always be tempting targets since
the amount of collateral damage is ENORMOUS!!! P.S. The NRC recently
punted on the issue of airborne attack, leaving such issues to the US
military. Except the US air force/military was never consulted
about defending them, as a result nearly all of them have NO defense
from airborne attack vectors.
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/55457.html
>Now to you 'Greenies, I will pose a simply challenge which with
>Google's help shouldn't take you long to navigate. That is, research
>the number of large mammals on the earth, including people. Now
>multiple that number with the Btus that earch mamal consmes dissipates
>in a given day, then the volume of CO2 and water vapor collectively
>produced. (Let's for now ignore the decompositon of forest droppings.)
People and animals are sustained by biomass (renewables based on CO2).
That said, there is a limit to the carrying capacity of the earth's
biosphere and humanity is quickly approaching that threshold. (Care
for a meal of Soylent Green?)
As for atmospheric H20.. it phase changes (and precipitates out of the
atmosphere) based on temperature..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Atmospheric_Water_Vapor_Mean.2005.030.jpg
Notice.. how little H20 vapor exists in the polar regions..
Meanwhile increasing CO2 concentration redistributes itself in a
nearly uniform mix around the globe. (Ideal gas law).
This is one reason why the polar regions have been experiencing
significantly higher temperature increases. I.E. Relatively low ppm
H20 == CO2 emissions becomes a increasingly dominant factor in regards
to IR capture rate in these areas.
hhc...@yahoo.com
> On 21 Mar 2007 19:10:06 -0700, hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >Thank God, it's about time that the US came to its senses! The only
> >sad part is that they are purchasing foreign made reactors rather than
> >the many proven American products currently available.
>
> >What is sad is that most of the 'Greenies' and 'Global Warming'
> >psychos
>
> I see that you're labeling some of the most sane people on earth as
> pxxxxxx, what does that make you? (genocidal maniac??)
Huh. Did you actually understand the thrust of my post? Did you
bother to use Google or visit a library to actually find out what the
numerical statistics and parameters of this issue actually are?
I think not!
In response to your question, the claims made by Al Gore clearly label
him as the genocidal maniac, not me. I simply translated his
'political self serving speak' into actual scientific terms, and
called attention to the ramifications of his expressed goal of
reducing atmospheric CO2 by 50%. The simple fact is, you cannot
accomplish this except through the reduction of aerobic organisms on
earth by roughly 50% (This of course includes humans.)
Since you didn't bother to reseach the facts, consider this link a
starter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerobic_organism
The solution to the hypothetical CO2 problem is pretty obvious to most
scientists, and largely includes re-opulation of CO2 absorbing/oxygen
producing vegitation in the increasingly depleted forrested regions of
the earth, and the algae and kelp population in the sea. Coupled with
population control (nature does a very good job of doing this for us),
there will be no long term CO2 problem with our biosphere, simply
cyclic variations.
Just as Hitler had the "ultimate solution to the Jewish problem", Al
Gore has the "ultimate solution to the global warming problem", except
Gore's solution if carried to reality would exceed the 9-million
deaths Hitler caused by at least one or two orders of magnitude!
This is just one of the reasons why most scientifically educated
people regard Al Gore as simply a clueless guy with vast political
ambitions that are far beyond his grasp...A guy who hopes to regain
his lost political status by doing the 'Chicken Little' act and
proclaiming that "the sky is falling".
I find it particularly sad that, here in the US -- where our national
founders were Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams and other men of
genius and character, various idiots like Gore get any media attention
whatsover. Our nation deserves much better than any of the announced
or un-announced presidential candidates who are now posturing on the
TV. Surely we have better people to chose from for our president.
Harry C.
Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring
> reducing atmospheric CO2 by 50%. The simple fact is, you cannot
> accomplish this except through the reduction of aerobic organisms on
> earth by roughly 50% (This of course includes humans.)
> The solution to the hypothetical CO2 problem is pretty obvious to most
> scientists, and largely includes re-opulation of CO2 absorbing/oxygen
> producing vegitation in the increasingly depleted forrested regions of
> Just as Hitler had the "ultimate solution to the Jewish problem", Al
> ambitions that are far beyond his grasp...A guy who hopes to regain
> his lost political status by doing the 'Chicken Little' act and
> proclaiming that "the sky is falling".
>
> Harry C.
Crackpot Harry Conover. Ignore.
hhc...@yahoo.com
"People and animals are sustained by biomass (renewables based on
CO2).
That said, there is a limit to the carrying capacity of the earth's
biosphere and humanity is quickly approaching that threshold. (Care
for a meal of Soylent Green?) "
Exactly the point that I was trying to make, except that you stated it
so much better.
I will admit that I tend to play down and minimize the global warming
and atmospheric CO2 issues because as a scientist I consider the
arguments suppoorting such theories and conclusions to be largely
speculative and unsupported in observed fact. Our lack of really long
term empirical evidence suggest that we don't yet have sufficient
historical fact available to support any long term theories about
either global warming or holes on the ozone layer, etc. My point is
that we should not embrace drastic and costly solutions to either,
until we know more about both...which in my mind will require another
several hundred years of observation and measurements. Being and elder
physicists, I have lived though many paradigm shifts in earth science.
Consequently, in my mind I consider it foolish to jump to any rapid
conclusions.
We do agree on the point you made that I have quoted above. There is a
certain balance that exists between the earth's animal population, and
the CO2 absorbing/Oxygen creating ability of the biomass to support
that population. What I observe is that while the earth's population
is increasing, the biomass capable of supporting that population is
decreasing...although even with several university and government
resources available to me, it is difficult to even come up with an
order of magnitude estimate of the differential rate.
What should be noted, and I believe that you can't disagree on this,
nature has a way of correcting any disparity between the earth's
population and its ability to support this population. Remember the
"Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse". Add to the four, natural disaster.
(No, I am not a Bible freak...) Still, when I look back over a
thousand or years of earth history, nature (call it God if that suits
you) has regulated events affecting earth's population in somewhat a
very heavy handed and draconic way. The balance has been maintained,
even using a few speculated reset and reboot type intervals.
The bottom line is simply that I trust nature far more than I trust
politicians, and at least to the best of my limited ability try to
look at the facts myself and reach my own determinations. I also
sometimes turn to respected friends at MIT, Harvard, and Cal Tech to
poll their opinions, which I generally find consistent with my own.
Then too, we all could be wrong.
Harry C.
Night of the Living Crackpots
Don't ever claim you haven't taken a stand on Global Waring or this
message will be read back to you where two 4th Reich Goosesteppers
converse.
Night of the Living Crackpots
> arguments suppoorting
> Being and elder
> physicists,
> Harry C.
Senile.
Crackpot Harry Conover. Ignore.
T. Keating
>On Mar 22, 3:32 am, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>> On 21 Mar 2007 19:10:06 -0700, hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >Thank God, it's about time that the US came to its senses! The only
>> >sad part is that they are purchasing foreign made reactors rather than
>> >the many proven American products currently available.
>>
>> >What is sad is that most of the 'Greenies' and 'Global Warming'
>> >psychos
>>
>> I see that you're labeling some of the most sane people on earth as
>> pxxxxxx, what does that make you? (genocidal maniac??)
>
>Huh. Did you actually understand the thrust of my post? Did you
>bother to use Google or visit a library to actually find out what the
>numerical statistics and parameters of this issue actually are?
No, I did not google it.. since your interpretation of Mr. Gores
objectives is obviously flawed..
>I think not!
His proposed objective was that the US should target a 90% reduction
of our fossil fuel CO2 emission's by 2050.
That negates all claims of bio-origins of CO2 since they are NOT
fossil fuels.
>
>In response to your question, the claims made by Al Gore clearly label
>him as the genocidal maniac, not me. I simply translated his
P.S. Mr. Gore is just one person.. to label ALL people dedicated to
Green movement and those who wish to mitigate GW as pxxxxxx is stretch
beyond imagination..
Here is what Mr. Gore proposed yesterday before the congressional
committees.
1.) Immediately freeze carbon at the existing level; then implement
programs to reduce it 90% by 2050.
Obviously Mr. Gore intended that goal to be based on fossil fuel
carbon. Time before these committees is limited. He proposed either
a CO2 cap and trade system similar the existing industrial regime for
SO2 emissions, or a Carbon tax or a combination of both.
2.) Reduce taxes on employment and production, instead taxing
pollution (especially CO2). These pollution taxes would raise the same
amount of money, but make us more competitive by encouraging
employment while discouraging pollution.
3.) A portion of the revenues must be earmarked for low-income and
middle class people who will have a difficult time making this
transition.
4.) Negotiate a strong global treaty to replace Kyoto, while working
toward de facto compliance with Kyoto. Move the start date of this new
treaty forward from 2012 to 2010, so the next president can to act
immediately, rather than waste time trying to pass Kyoto right before
it expires. We have to try to get China and India to participate in
the treaty. If they don’t immediately participate, we have to move
forward with the treaty regardless, trusting that they will join
sooner rather than later.
5.) Impose a moratorium on construction of any new coal-fired power
plant not compatible with carbon capture and sequestration.
6.) Develop an "electranet" -- a smart grid that allows individual
homeowners and small businesses to create green power and sell their
excess power to the utility companies at a fair price. Just as widely
distributed information processing led to a large new surge of
productivity, we need a law that allows widely distributed energy
generation to be sold into the grid, at a rate determined not by a the
utility companies, but by regulation. The goal is to create a grid
that does not require huge, centralized power plants.
7.) Raise CAFE standards for cars and trucks as part of a
comprehensive package. Cars and trucks are a large part of the
problem, but coal and buildings must be addressed at the same time.
8.) Set a date for the ban of incandescent light bulbs that gives
industry time to create alternatives. If the date is set, industry
will meet this challenge.
9.) Create Connie Mae, a carbon-neutral mortgage association. Connie
Mae will defer the costs of things like insulation and energy
efficient windows which cut carbon but are often not used by builders
or renovators because they add to the upfront costs of homes, only
paying for themselves after several years of energy savings.
10.) The SEC should require disclosure of carbon emissions in
corporate reporting.
He also mentioned that congress should pass a law to pre-empting local
ordinances which restrict the installation of solar panels. A
difficulty that he encountered trying while trying to install solar
panels on his property in Tennessee.
Joe Fischer
>No, I did not google it.. since your interpretation of Mr. Gores
>objectives is obviously flawed..
Do you really have to bore us with his objectives,
I might fall asleep reading them if I don't start laughing
or get my blood pressure up.
>His proposed objective was that the US should target a 90% reduction
>of our fossil fuel CO2 emission's by 2050.
Well, how are we going to do that?
>That negates all claims of bio-origins of CO2 since they are NOT
>fossil fuels.
That should be understood.
>P.S. Mr. Gore is just one person.. to label ALL people dedicated to
>Green movement and those who wish to mitigate GW as pxxxxxx is stretch
>beyond imagination..
Boring is boring.
>Here is what Mr. Gore proposed yesterday before the congressional
>committees.
>
>1.) Immediately freeze carbon at the existing level; then implement
>programs to reduce it 90% by 2050.
The protocol for implementing that is absurd,
I used no natural gas except a pilot light in November,
December and January, and ran the heater in cold
February, and then the pilot went out and I did not
relight it.
Now suppose I was an industry and did that,
what numbers would be used as the freeze level.
>Obviously Mr. Gore intended that goal to be based on fossil fuel
>carbon. Time before these committees is limited. He proposed either
>a CO2 cap and trade system similar the existing industrial regime for
>SO2 emissions, or a Carbon tax or a combination of both.
So more red tape, and how does a new business start?
>2.) Reduce taxes on employment and production, instead taxing
>pollution (especially CO2). These pollution taxes would raise the same
>amount of money, but make us more competitive by encouraging
>employment while discouraging pollution.
Encourage employment? Does he really believe
that there are any sober willing people wanting a job?
This is a clue to just how out of touch with reality he is.
>3.) A portion of the revenues must be earmarked for low-income and
>middle class people who will have a difficult time making this
>transition.
Of course, more wealth redistribution, why is that news?
>4.) Negotiate a strong global treaty to replace Kyoto, while working
>toward de facto compliance with Kyoto. Move the start date of this new
>treaty forward from 2012 to 2010, so the next president can to act
>immediately, rather than waste time trying to pass Kyoto right before
>it expires. We have to try to get China and India to participate in
>the treaty. If they don’t immediately participate, we have to move
>forward with the treaty regardless, trusting that they will join
>sooner rather than later.
And have Blood and Gore and company sell the credits.
>5.) Impose a moratorium on construction of any new coal-fired power
>plant not compatible with carbon capture and sequestration.
And prevent any new houses or businesses being built.
>6.) Develop an "electranet" -- a smart grid that allows individual
>homeowners and small businesses to create green power and sell their
>excess power to the utility companies at a fair price. Just as widely
>distributed information processing led to a large new surge of
>productivity, we need a law that allows widely distributed energy
>generation to be sold into the grid, at a rate determined not by a the
>utility companies, but by regulation. The goal is to create a grid
>that does not require huge, centralized power plants.
More government, too bad there isn't much green energy.
>7.) Raise CAFE standards for cars and trucks as part of a
>comprehensive package. Cars and trucks are a large part of the
>problem, but coal and buildings must be addressed at the same time.
More legislation to go with the tons of straight jacket laws.
>8.) Set a date for the ban of incandescent light bulbs that gives
>industry time to create alternatives. If the date is set, industry
>will meet this challenge.
So I will have to pay $8 for a light bulb?
>9.) Create Connie Mae, a carbon-neutral mortgage association. Connie
>Mae will defer the costs of things like insulation and energy
>efficient windows which cut carbon but are often not used by builders
>or renovators because they add to the upfront costs of homes, only
>paying for themselves after several years of energy savings.
So 40 year mortgages are not long enough?
>10.) The SEC should require disclosure of carbon emissions in
>corporate reporting.
More disbanded corporations. More government.
>He also mentioned that congress should pass a law to pre-empting local
>ordinances which restrict the installation of solar panels. A
>difficulty that he encountered trying while trying to install solar
>panels on his property in Tennessee.
Like there are home owners in every state with enough
money, and young enough, and no trees in the way.
Is that all Al Bore has to do is sit around and design
the next horror of government?
Why didn't he persuade Clinton to give up
his time with interns and get the laws passed then,
he was president of the senate and chaired the
space science board for 8 years and was silent
the whole time?
Joe Fischer
GOP Adultery Party in '08
Arnold Walker
"T. Keating" <tkus...@ktcnslt.com> wrote in message
news:pt8603dbedcjhae4q...@4ax.com...
> On 22 Mar 2007 11:41:47 -0700, hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>On Mar 22, 3:32 am, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>>> On 21 Mar 2007 19:10:06 -0700, hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>> >Thank God, it's about time that the US came to its senses! The only
>>> >sad part is that they are purchasing foreign made reactors rather than
>>> >the many proven American products currently available.
>>>
>>> >What is sad is that most of the 'Greenies' and 'Global Warming'
>>> >psychos
>>>
>>> I see that you're labeling some of the most sane people on earth as
>>> pxxxxxx, what does that make you? (genocidal maniac??)
>>
>>Huh. Did you actually understand the thrust of my post? Did you
>>bother to use Google or visit a library to actually find out what the
>>numerical statistics and parameters of this issue actually are?
>
> No, I did not google it.. since your interpretation of Mr. Gores
> objectives is obviously flawed..
>
>>I think not!
>
> His proposed objective was that the US should target a 90% reduction
> of our fossil fuel CO2 emission's by 2050.
>
> That negates all claims of bio-origins of CO2 since they are NOT
> fossil fuels.
As shown by TDP process.....oil from turkey guts,plants,and petrochemical
products.
Many like diesel are prone to bacteria activity....part of the point for
"Seafoam".
And other anti bacteria additives......
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Fred Kasner
Harry, I am afraid that you are too much an optomist. Man has developed
skills that surpass what there was in the past when natural disasters
managed to thin out the overpopulation that limited resources were in
danger of being overwhelmed. The black plague of Europe really didn't so
much reduce the population of Europe as to thin out the cities. The
countryside where the resources were more apparent managed to thrive and
reproduce so when the lice plague was ended the cities once again
thrived and this is where the big population explosions occured. If
global warming, whether anthropogenic or natural, creates a serious
problem it may be one associated with an Earth very different from the
one that we exploited in hundreds of generations past. We may find that
there are too little resources for a too large population. However man
has always found a solution for that. We kill one another and the
stronger and more compelled ones triumph with a much reduced population.
When things get easier after such mass killing the population rises once
again to meet the resources. I'm glad I was of that generation that saw
the grand abundance of such resources and didn't kill for them (we found
other excuses to murder one another.) In point of fact it is quite
possible that as this solar system moves through space it may encounter
radiation of amount that overwhelms the Van Allen repository and either
drives us all underground to become less than human or just only allows
those mutants who are more resistant to radiation to survive. Hubris thy
name is man.
FK
Fred Kasner
Rather difficult to respond to rational thought isn't it? I see why you
are thus compelled to refer to rationality as crackpot thinking.
FK
Crackpot Zombie Hordes
Crackpot Fred Kasner. Ignore.
Crackpot Zombie Hordes
Fred Kasner
If all else, including logical persuasion, fails, resort to name
calling. Perhaps that will win you an occasional argument. But with whom?
FK
Vendicar Decarian
From: "Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring" <Crook...@ScienceCop.info>
> TOKYO (AP) - Japan's largest heavy machinery maker Mitsubishi Heavy
> Industries Ltd. said Wednesday it has received an order for two
> nuclear reactors from U.S. electric utility TXU Corp., the first
> export deal of equipment made by a Japanese company.
Because AmeriKKKan designed reactors like everything else AmeriKKKan is
inferior.
Vendicar Decarian
"Night of the Living Crackpots" <Crac...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote in
message
> Socialist: "What the US needs to do, is to "assume responsibility" for
> building nukes and just build them."
When has AmeriKKKa ever taken responsibility for anything it has done?
Fuck man, the AmeriKKKan people won't even take responsibility for
electing a Monkey as president.
Ahahahahahahahaha...
Vendicar Decarian
"Maximust" <maxi...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Sounds like a great idea. Those private enterprises won't build nuke
> plants
> without government fascist subsidies, so who not cut out the fat-ass
> middleman
> and build them ourselves?
Because you are too fucking stupid and incompetent.
Vendicar Decarian
"nada" <dwalt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Seriously, there is a series of things the US can do now, including
> the funding of municipal utility and state utility districts that
> already exist. Public power *right now* provides cheaper and safer
> power than private utilities.
And, it always has, and always will. Seriouisly.
Souls Black as Coal
wrote:
> "Maximust" <maxi_m...@hotmail.com> wrote
dave.w...@comcast.net
Turds.info> wrote:
Seems a bitch touchy...the TXU orders are now confirmed by Mitsubishi.
Pending COL (construction and liscening agreement) and State approval,
concrete to start pouring in 36 months.
David
Carbon Criminal Polluters
Link? The article up top says online dates between 2015 and 2020.
dave.w...@comcast.net
wrote:
Not exactly. The Mitsubishi reactors are rated higher, 1500 MWe or so.
The Westinghouse ones are rated at 1100 MWe. It all depends on what
the final capacity you want. The Chinese, for example, order from
Westinghouse, Areva in France and Toschiba, among others.
David
dexx
still heavy water reactors - therefore based on antiquated technology.
One of the latest designs (eg pebble bed) would have been a better
choice.