On Florida and Global Warming
Michael Ejercito
hurt Florida. They claim that "seawater will advance inland as much as
400 feet in low-lying areas, flooding shoreline homes and hotels,
limiting future development, and eroding the state's beloved beaches",
that "freshwater supplies feeding Florida's cities, agriculture, and
tourist centers will be at risk of saltwater contamination", that
"[s]altwater encroachment will also likely inundate coastal wetlands,
gravely threatening the lower Everglades and its wildlife", that
"[t]ourism will likely suffer. Sea level rise, climbing temperatures,
and alterations in rainfall will combine to damage beaches, the
Everglades, coral reefs and other unique ecosystems that make Florida
such an appealing tourist destination", "[g]lobal warming will pose
specific health threats to Florida's citizens, likely increasing the
incidence of heat-related illness, exacerbating poor air quality, and
perhaps even making it easier for infectious diseases to spread.
Florida's seniors will be particularly susceptible to these effects".
And all of this is supposedly due to the burning of fossil fuels.
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/nflorida.asp
If this is true, I say we dig burn every ounce of coal, every chip
of wood, every drop of gasoline. So what if all of the above happens?
The state of Florida deserves it and worse after what it did to Barney
Brown.
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/the_age_of_innocents/
He was convicted of rape and robbery in a Florida criminal court.
As it turned it, he had earlier been acquitted in a juvenile court of
those same charges. As a result, he would spend the next thirty-eight
years in prison for a crime that he did not commit, in defiance of the
Fifth Amendment clause against double jeopardy and binding precedent
to the contrary (Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784) He was only
released in 2008 when a judge released him because his second
prosecution violated double jeopardy.
It is one thing when police and prosecutors are misled by the
evidence, similar to a B-52 Stratofortress bomber pilot being misled
by intelligence and observation to bomb a civilian building instead of
an enemy position. That is regrettable error, but an error not
necessarily due to malice.
But a B-52 pilot disobeying orders and targeting a civilian
building is a different matter. And in the Brown case, the state of
Florida violated its own laws as well as the U.S. Constitution to send
an innocent boy to prison and take away thirty-eight years of his
life. That is extremely reprehensible. And for this, Florida should be
punished.
For the past fifteen years or so, I have heard from people that the
government should take away Americans' guns because some Americans
abuse guns. From the massacre to Columbine to the massacre at Virginia
Tech to ther recent massacre in Tucson, there have been calls for gun
control.
But if the government argues that such actions above justify taking
away people's guns, then I say Florida's actions with respect to
Barney Brown justifies taking away its power to punish criminals by
shutting down the police and the criminal courts. For Florida abused
its justice system. At the very least, every person convicted of
violating any of Florida's laws between 1970 and 2008 should be
pardoned. After all, if using a gun to break a law mandates the gun
being taken away, surely using the criminal justice system to break
the law mandates the criminal justice system being taken away. And
surely when Florida broke its own laws to send an innocent man to
prison, it forfeited the legal authority to punish others for breaking
ITS laws.
Some might ask how Florida is supposed to administer justice if
police and criminal courts are abolished. That is the whole point of
punishment, to deprive the punishee of the ability to do certain
things.
Michael
Banned
I was forced into religion as a child. That was the only wayout.
The secret service kidnaps and tortures me and refuses to allow me my
rights. Lawyers are threatening to turn off my phone(for 20 years)
the
medical mafia denies me medical attention, unless it is a lobotomy.
The only assistance offered to me are the religions that have been
creating my torture. My internet access has repeatedly been
compromised denying me the right to free trade. Most all American
media has denied me the 1st amendment and is conspiring to have all my
other basic human rights revoked.
American are enemies to their own ideals.
Arrest the Bush Cartel. MY hat is off to anyone who executes my
senator, congressman or governor.
betweentheeyes
>news:54ac872d-0c44-426b-bf02->da5a8f...@r4g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Currently, some scientist predict that global warming
> will greatly
>hurt Florida. They claim that "seawater will advance inland
>as much as
>
>
> If this is true, I say we dig burn every ounce of coal,
> every chip
>of wood, every drop of gasoline. So what if all of the
>above happens?
>The state of Florida deserves it and worse after what it
>did to Barney
>Brown.
>
>
> Michael
Hey fella, I live down here. I'm running out an buying an
electric car tomorrow just to counteract all the stuff you
suggest.
Michael Ejercito
<betweenthee...@defendingThe2nd.org> wrote:
> >"Michael Ejercito" wrote in message
>
> > Currently, some scientist predict that global warming
> > will greatly
> >hurt Florida. They claim that "seawater will advance inland
> >as much as
>
> ><snip>
>
> > If this is true, I say we dig burn every ounce of coal,
> > every chip
> >of wood, every drop of gasoline. So what if all of the
> >above happens?
> >The state of Florida deserves it and worse after what it
> >did to Barney
> >Brown.
>
> ><snip>
>
> > Michael
>
> Hey fella, I live down here. I'm running out an buying an
> electric car tomorrow just to counteract all the stuff you
> suggest.
against Barney Brown?
Michael
Gray Ghost
b023-d6e...@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> On Feb 5, 5:05�am, "betweentheeyes"
><betweenthee...@defendingThe2nd.org> wrote:
>> >"Michael Ejercito" �wrote in message
>> >news:54ac872d-0c44-426b-bf02->da5a8f820__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...
__END
> _MASK_i?a63jfAD$z...@r4g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > � Currently, some scientist predict that global warming
>> > will greatly
>> >hurt Florida. They claim that "seawater will advance inland
>> >as much as
>>
>> ><snip>
>>
>> > � If this is true, I say we dig burn every ounce of coal,
>> > every chip
>> >of wood, every drop of gasoline. So what if all of the
>> >above happens?
>> >The state of Florida deserves it and worse after what it
>> >did to Barney
>> >Brown.
>>
>> ><snip>
>>
>> > Michael
>>
>> Hey fella, I live down here. �I'm running out an buying an
>> electric car tomorrow just to counteract all the stuff you
>> suggest.
> So what punishment is appropriate for the crime Florida committed
> against Barney Brown?
>
>
> Michael
>
All the people responsible should be made to serve the same sentence he
did. "Florida" did nothing. People did.
--
If all you are doing is accusing your opponenets of all sorts of infamy.
If all you are doing is dehumanizing conservatives, TEA Party members,
Republicans
You are not part of the solution,
You are not part of the problem.
You ARE the problem.
Michael Ejercito
wrote:
> Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:3e2b6d36-811e-40ed-
> b023-d6e461116...@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 5:05 am, "betweentheeyes"
> ><betweenthee...@defendingThe2nd.org> wrote:
> >> >"Michael Ejercito" wrote in message
> >> >news:54ac872d-0c44-426b-bf02->da5a8f820__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...
> __END
>
> >> > Currently, some scientist predict that global warming
> >> > will greatly
> >> >hurt Florida. They claim that "seawater will advance inland
> >> >as much as
>
> >> ><snip>
>
> >> > If this is true, I say we dig burn every ounce of coal,
> >> > every chip
> >> >of wood, every drop of gasoline. So what if all of the
> >> >above happens?
> >> >The state of Florida deserves it and worse after what it
> >> >did to Barney
> >> >Brown.
>
> >> ><snip>
>
> >> > Michael
>
> >> Hey fella, I live down here. I'm running out an buying an
> >> electric car tomorrow just to counteract all the stuff you
> >> suggest.
> > So what punishment is appropriate for the crime Florida committed
> > against Barney Brown?
>
> > Michael
>
> All the people responsible should be made to serve the same sentence he
> did. "Florida" did nothing. People did.
Michael
betweentheeyes
On Feb 5, 10:28 am, Gray Ghost
<grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:3e2b6d36-811e-40ed-
> b023-d6e461116...@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
<snip>
>
>> All the people responsible should be made to serve the
>> same sentence he
>> did. "Florida" did nothing. People did.
> And if those people are dead?
>
>
> Michael
Do you desire revenge or justice?
Revenge - hold responsible everyone out in the state
Justice - hole those responsible
Regarding whether the responsible ones are still breathing:
And that matters, how?
Bill Graham
The, "Bush cartel" is long gone. You mean, "Arrest the Obama cartel", don't
you?
Bill Graham
Don't forget that 60% of all the electricity we produce comes from burning
coal. So, when you drive an electric car 100 miles, 60 of those miles come
from burning coal.
Gray Ghost
8bae-86e...@u24g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
Well then I guess it is to late. Who else would you punish, those that had
nothing to do with it?
You want to give him money? How much? And who pays it? The citizens of
Florida that didn't do it?
Maybe we should attach thier estates and visit the sins of the father on
his offspring?
RD Sandman
news:YJ6dnYpEdIm8U9DQ...@giganews.com:
Which I have never seen burn clean.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
History shows that today's bailout will become
tomorrow's entitlement.
betweentheeyes
news:YJ6dnYpEdIm8U9DQ...@giganews.com...
I hate those little details
Here's the drill:
Congress passed some tax scheme (usually in the form of tax
credits) to purchase an electric vehicle. Congress feels
good.
The consumer, being motivated by money, purchases something,
in this case an electric car, and reaps taxation credits
which increases the dollar amount of their taxes due the
Federal government. Consumer feel good.
The tree huggers lobbied Congress to do 'something'. Tree
huggers feel good.
The coal producers sell more coal. Coal producers feel good
Big Auto (Japan/Detroit) produces a new car which you plug
in instead of fill up with an incredible 72% margin. Big
Auto feels good.
This is a Win Win Win Win. Everyone's feeling good!
Bill Graham
Well, they can scrub all the particulate matter out of it now, but it still
produces lots of carbon dioxide. And, there is no way to get rid of than
except by photosynthetic plant conversion. Nuclear power generation is the
real way to go for electricity.....Trouble is, we have billions of tons of
coal, and we don't want to throw it away. (Money supercedes logic)
Bill Graham
Except Al Gore and his global warming buddies. there is no way to scrub the
CO2 out of the air at the electric plant. Only rain forests and plants in
general can do that. The heat from the burning coal is produced by the
Carbon + Oxygen = CO2 + Heat equation. Seperating the CO2 back into Carbon +
Oxygen would use all that energy back up plus a little. Only the sun and
photosynthesis can do that for us.
Ray Fischer
>betweentheeyes wrote:
>> Hey fella, I live down here. I'm running out an buying an
>> electric car tomorrow just to counteract all the stuff you
>> suggest.
>
>Don't forget that 60% of all the electricity we produce comes from burning
>coal. So, when you drive an electric car 100 miles, 60 of those miles come
>from burning coal.
It's actually 45% (never trust a dumbass rightard to know shit about
anything) and that's still way more efficient than burning gasoline.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
rfis...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
Michael Ejercito
Michael
Michael Ejercito
wrote:
> Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:a87fff87-8ea5-439f-
> 8bae-86e222e1e...@u24g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 10:28 am, Gray Ghost <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:3e2b6d36-811e-
> 40ed-
> >> b023-d6e461116...@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> > d
> >> > against Barney Brown?
>
> >> > Michael
>
> >> All the people responsible should be made to serve the same sentence he
> >> did. "Florida" did nothing. People did.
> > And if those people are dead?
>
> > Michael
>
> Well then I guess it is to late. Who else would you punish, those that had
> nothing to do with it?
>
> You want to give him money? How much? And who pays it? The citizens of
> Florida that didn't do it?
>
For whom did that judge and prosecutor work?
Michael
betweentheeyes
On Feb 5, 11:38 am, "betweentheeyes"
<betweenthee...@defendingThe2nd.org> wrote:
> "Michael Ejercito" wrote in message
>
> news:a87fff87-8ea5-439f...@u24g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Feb 5, 10:28 am, Gray Ghost
> <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > news:3e2b6d36-811e-40ed-
> > b023-d6e461116...@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Do you desire revenge or justice?
>>
>> Revenge - hold responsible everyone out in the state
>> Justice - hole those responsible
>>
>> Regarding whether the responsible ones are still
>> breathing:
>> And that matters, how?
> They can not be punished if their are dead.
>
>
> Michael
which matters, how?
You want revenge. Good luck with that.
betweentheeyes
Oh so wrong, carbon credits breath. Algore only does things
for votes. Algore doesn't give a rats as about CO2, global
warming or Earth in the balance. Algore, having urged for
the electric car in the first pace is seen as a winner.
Algore is feeling good. The tree huggers are feeling good.
The tax payer is feeling good. The coal company is feeling
good. Big auto is feeling good.
Even I'm feeling good writing this fairy tale.
The only person not feeling good is the original poster to
this thread who want to sink all of Florida just to get back
at a judicial system that screwed up.
Gray Ghost
9646-b8a...@w7g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
> On Feb 5, 11:38�am, "betweentheeyes"
><betweenthee...@defendingThe2nd.org> wrote:
>> "Michael Ejercito" �wrote in message
>>
>> news:a87fff87-8ea5-439f-8bae-86e222e1e671
@u24g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> On Feb 5, 10:28 am, Gray Ghost
>> <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> > news:3e2b6d36-811e-40ed-
>> > b023-d6e461116...@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> All the people responsible should be made to serve the
>> >> same sentence he
>> >> did. "Florida" did nothing. People did.
>> > � And if those people are dead?
>>
>> > Michael
>>
>> Do you desire revenge or justice?
>>
>> Revenge - hold responsible everyone out in the state
>> Justice - hole those responsible
>>
>> Regarding whether the responsible ones are still breathing:
>> And that matters, how?
> They can not be punished if their are dead.
>
>
> Michael
>
if thier what are dead?
Gray Ghost
bcb4-a24...@o32g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
The way things have been going lately judges and prosecutors are not wrking
for the people very much.
Gray Ghost
There is a coal plant not far from here. I was stunned when I drove past it
the first time. I have no problem with them.
It ain't the money fella. it's the nutsy fagan enviro dipshits.
Bill Graham
You can't see carbon dioxide. It is oderless, tastless and invisible. but it
traps heat from the sun beneath it and keeps it from re-radiating back up
into outer space, so it contributes to global warming. Perhaps not as big a
deal as Al Gore thinks, but it would be best to think of ways to not produce
it. My choice is nuclear power generation. There are many other ways to use
coal. We can produce lots of things from it....Even gasoline and oil.
Gray Ghost
> Gray Ghost wrote:
>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:37mdna9FHtJOQ9DQ...@giganews.com:
>>
>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>> news:YJ6dnYpEdIm8U9DQ...@giganews.com:
>>>>
>>>>> betweentheeyes wrote:
>>>>>>> "Michael Ejercito" wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:54ac872d-0c44-426b-bf02->da5a8f...@r4g2000prm.googlegroups.
>>>>>>> co m...
Then we should export the nutsy fagans that think nuclear power os the
opening scene of a bad sci fi movie.
Kent Wills
[...]
>>>> Hey fella, I live down here. I'm running out an buying an
>>>> electric car tomorrow just to counteract all the stuff you
>>>> suggest.
>>>
>>> Don't forget that 60% of all the electricity we produce comes from
>>> burning coal. So, when you drive an electric car 100 miles, 60 of
>>> those miles come from burning coal.
>>
>> Which I have never seen burn clean.
>
>Well, they can scrub all the particulate matter out of it now, but it still
>produces lots of carbon dioxide. And, there is no way to get rid of than
>except by photosynthetic plant conversion. Nuclear power generation is the
>real way to go for electricity.....Trouble is, we have billions of tons of
>coal, and we don't want to throw it away. (Money supercedes logic)
Nuclear is good, if it can be kept safe. Three Miles Island and
Chernobyl still makes some a bit scared of the idea of nuclear power.
--
It's hard to relate to this high-tech world when your kid says her
Lego Toys need more memory.
Lookout
wrote:
We have to shoot the nuclear left over into space. It could be safely
done from many equatorial islands on small, proven reliable rockets.
We moved TONS of chemical waste safely to Enewetak for disposal and we
could do the same and then shoot them off to the sun.
RD Sandman
> RD Sandman wrote:
>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:YJ6dnYpEdIm8U9DQ...@giganews.com:
>>
>>> betweentheeyes wrote:
>>>>> "Michael Ejercito" wrote in message
>>>>> news:54ac872d-0c44-426b-bf02->da5a8f...@r4g2000prm.googlegroups.
>>>>> co m...
I don't have a problem with using our natural resources to the best
benefit.....I have a problem when some folks say it is a way to produce
clean energy when it isn't.
RD Sandman
news:Xns9E849AD531FFWe...@216.196.97.142:
> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:37mdna9FHtJOQ9DQ...@giganews.com:
>
>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>> news:YJ6dnYpEdIm8U9DQ...@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> betweentheeyes wrote:
>>>>>> "Michael Ejercito" wrote in message
>>>>>> news:54ac872d-0c44-426b-bf02->da5a8f...@r4g2000prm.googlegroups
>>>>>> .co m...
I have a friend whose family owns some mines in Pennsylvania, but that
doesn't make it clean form of energy....just an available one.
> It ain't the money fella. it's the nutsy fagan enviro dipshits.
>
--
RD Sandman
news:mmjtk69b9n3an1k2q...@4ax.com:
While true, they certainly weren't common events.
RD Sandman
news:iikla0$43h$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
Right......$7500 on a $41000 automobile. That leaves a difference of
$33500 plus license, title and insurance. How many people other than the
well to do do you see really driving one of those? Obama's vision of a
million of them on the road in a decade isn't really an expected event
except by progressives. Besides when you have cold weather like this
year, it really screws up your battery efficiencies.
> The consumer, being motivated by money, purchases something,
> in this case an electric car, and reaps taxation credits
> which increases the dollar amount of their taxes due the
> Federal government. Consumer feel good.
>
> The tree huggers lobbied Congress to do 'something'. Tree
> huggers feel good.
>
> The coal producers sell more coal. Coal producers feel good
>
> Big Auto (Japan/Detroit) produces a new car which you plug
> in instead of fill up with an incredible 72% margin. Big
> Auto feels good.
>
> This is a Win Win Win Win. Everyone's feeling good!
Except the consumer when reality sets in.....again. Another scheme like
methanol.
RD Sandman
Except Gore feels he can offset his production of CO2 by buying a few
acres of jungle in South America.
RD Sandman
news:4d4de536$0$10543$742e...@news.sonic.net:
> Bill Graham <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>betweentheeyes wrote:
>
>>> Hey fella, I live down here. I'm running out an buying an
>>> electric car tomorrow just to counteract all the stuff you
>>> suggest.
>>
>>Don't forget that 60% of all the electricity we produce comes from
>>burning coal. So, when you drive an electric car 100 miles, 60 of
>>those miles come from burning coal.
>
> It's actually 45% (never trust a dumbass rightard to know shit about
> anything) and that's still way more efficient than burning gasoline.
>
Coal - 44.5%
Gas - 23.4%
Petroleum - 1.0%
Nuclear - 20.3%
Hydro-Elec - 6.9%
Other renew- 3.6%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation
Costs for generating electricity:
U.S. Electricity Production Costs and Components
1995 - 2009, In 2009 cents per kilowatt-hour
Total Production Costs Operations & Maintenance
Costs Fuel Costs
Year Coal Gas Nuclear Petroleum Coal Gas Nuclear Petroleum Coal
Gas Nuclear Petroleum
1995 2.56 3.73 2.69 5.83 0.61 0.71 1.89 1.64 1.96 3.02 0.80 4.20
1996 2.41 4.56 2.52 5.93 0.54 0.70 1.80 1.36 1.88 3.86 0.72 4.57
1997 2.33 4.62 2.64 5.33 0.52 0.67 1.93 1.16 1.81 3.95 0.71 4.17
1998 2.28 4.04 2.45 3.75 0.55 0.61 1.75 0.72 1.73 3.44 0.70 3.03
1999 2.20 4.37 2.21 4.50 0.52 0.51 1.57 1.02 1.67 3.86 0.64 3.47
2000 2.15 7.24 2.16 6.48 0.51 0.57 1.56 0.80 1.63 6.67 0.60 5.69
2001 2.20 7.30 2.05 5.99 0.54 0.64 1.48 0.82 1.66 6.66 0.56 5.17
2002 2.18 4.63 2.01 5.71 0.55 0.62 1.49 0.93 1.63 4.01 0.53 4.78
2003 2.15 6.37 1.98 6.86 0.55 0.66 1.44 1.09 1.60 5.72 0.53 5.77
2004 2.23 6.40 1.93 6.52 0.57 0.55 1.41 0.98 1.66 5.85 0.53 5.54
2005 2.42 7.99 1.87 8.94 0.57 0.53 1.38 0.97 1.85 7.47 0.49 7.97
2006 2.52 6.91 1.90 10.31 0.59 0.54 1.42 1.38 1.93 6.37 0.49 8.93
2007 2.57 6.68 1.89 10.78 0.60 0.52 1.39 1.45 1.96 6.16 0.50 9.33
2008 2.80 7.80 1.96 17.63 0.60 0.53 1.46 1.94 2.20 7.27 0.51 15.69
2009 2.97 5.00 2.03 12.37 0.67 0.56 1.46 2.55 2.30 4.44 0.57 9.82
Production Costs = Operations and Maintenance Costs + Fuel Costs.
Production costs do not include indirect costs and are based on
FERC Form 1 filings submitted by regulated utilities. Production costs
are modeled for utilities that are not regulated.
Source: Ventyx Velocity Suite
Updated: 5/10
http://tinyurl.com/4hpm67n
Gray Ghost
news:Xns9E8472A87...@216.196.121.131:
Well it's preferable to shivering in the dark. Blame the anti nuke pukes.
Civilization NEEDS energy.
betweentheeyes
news:Xns9E8473A9E...@216.196.121.131...
"betweentheeyes" <between...@defendingThe2nd.org> wrote
in
news:iikla0$43h$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> "Bill Graham" wrote in message
<snip>
>>
>> This is a Win Win Win Win. Everyone's feeling good!
>
>Except the consumer when reality sets in.....again.
>Another scheme like
>methanol.
>
EXACTLY .. I was beginning to think no one was reading the
thread!
Gray Ghost
> Bill Graham <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>betweentheeyes wrote:
>
>>> Hey fella, I live down here. I'm running out an buying an
>>> electric car tomorrow just to counteract all the stuff you
>>> suggest.
>>
>>Don't forget that 60% of all the electricity we produce comes from
burning
>>coal. So, when you drive an electric car 100 miles, 60 of those miles
come
>>from burning coal.
>
> It's actually 45% (never trust a dumbass rightard to know shit about
> anything) and that's still way more efficient than burning gasoline.
>
Never trut anyone who uses the terms dumbass, rightard and shit to be
telling you something that resembles reality. If he had facts on his side
he would present them.
The adhominem and profanity is meant to bully you and stifle debate.
Yawn, Ray, I'm not impressed.
RD Sandman
> RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in
> news:Xns9E8472A87...@216.196.121.131:
>
>> Gray Ghost <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns9E849AD531FFWe...@216.196.97.142:
>>
>>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>> news:37mdna9FHtJOQ9DQ...@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>> news:YJ6dnYpEdIm8U9DQ...@giganews.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> betweentheeyes wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Michael Ejercito" wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:54ac872d-0c44-426b-bf02->da5a8f820e13
Bet your ass on that.....
Scout
"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mmjtk69b9n3an1k2q...@4ax.com...
True, but both of those were based on very antiquated designs. Particularly
the Russian design which we wouldn't have even used due to safety concerns.
Modern designs are all but totally bullet proof including extremes up to
incredibility unlikely scenarios like a total and complete failure in the
coolant circulation system.
The only significant problem with nuclear is the waste products. Currently
the USA is the only major nuclear power which does NO reprocessing on it's
nuclear wastes. We enacted treaties that said we wouldn't as part of the
cold war era "non-proliferation" treaties even though the people we have
signed with have gone on to engage in such reprocessing anyway. I saw a year
or two ago that Popular Mechanics was showing what would be necessary
(including some as yet uninvented technology) to allow reprocessing of our
nuclear wastes and we were expected to spend a billion dollars over the next
10 years working on the R&D to develop that technology. What a laugh, we've
had such technology since the 60's. The ONLY difference is whether you get
weapons grade material during the reprocessing. As a major nuclear power
with all the atomic weapons we chose to have.....WHO CARES if we get some
more weapons grade material? After all, we're going to produce all we want
anyway, and any extra would simply be 'cut' to produce power plant grade
material.
We should push for such reprocessing as a matter of course.
Oh, and if we do a full reprocessing of our wastes it reduces the hazardous
radioactive life to something on the order of 250 years. Not perfect, but
it's a number we can work with far better than 100,000 years.
Lookout
<grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4d4de536$0$10543
>$742e...@news.sonic.net:
>
>> Bill Graham <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>betweentheeyes wrote:
>>
>>>> Hey fella, I live down here. I'm running out an buying an
>>>> electric car tomorrow just to counteract all the stuff you
>>>> suggest.
>>>
>>>Don't forget that 60% of all the electricity we produce comes from
>burning
>>>coal. So, when you drive an electric car 100 miles, 60 of those miles
>come
>>>from burning coal.
>>
>> It's actually 45% (never trust a dumbass rightard to know shit about
>> anything) and that's still way more efficient than burning gasoline.
>>
>
>Never trut anyone who uses the terms dumbass, rightard and shit to be
>telling you something that resembles reality. If he had facts on his side
>he would present them.
The CONSERVATIVES have had the White House for 24 out of the last 32
years. If anyone is to blame for the lack of leadership on nuclear
power it's conservatives.
>The adhominem and profanity is meant to bully you and stifle debate.
And once again you're wrong.
>
>Yawn, Ray, I'm not impressed.
And once again I had to point it out to you.
Why are you so fucking stupid?
Lookout
Very true. The French are leading the world in nuclear plant design.
>
>The only significant problem with nuclear is the waste products. Currently
>the USA is the only major nuclear power which does NO reprocessing on it's
>nuclear wastes. We enacted treaties that said we wouldn't as part of the
>cold war era "non-proliferation" treaties even though the people we have
>signed with have gone on to engage in such reprocessing anyway. I saw a year
>or two ago that Popular Mechanics was showing what would be necessary
>(including some as yet uninvented technology) to allow reprocessing of our
>nuclear wastes and we were expected to spend a billion dollars over the next
>10 years working on the R&D to develop that technology. What a laugh, we've
>had such technology since the 60's. The ONLY difference is whether you get
>weapons grade material during the reprocessing. As a major nuclear power
>with all the atomic weapons we chose to have.....WHO CARES if we get some
>more weapons grade material? After all, we're going to produce all we want
>anyway, and any extra would simply be 'cut' to produce power plant grade
>material.
>
>We should push for such reprocessing as a matter of course.
True. And shoot the rest into space.
Ray Fischer
>rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4d4de536$0$10543
>>>> Hey fella, I live down here. I'm running out an buying an
>>>> electric car tomorrow just to counteract all the stuff you
>>>> suggest.
>>>
>>>Don't forget that 60% of all the electricity we produce comes from
>burning
>>>coal. So, when you drive an electric car 100 miles, 60 of those miles
>come
>>>from burning coal.
>>
>> It's actually 45% (never trust a dumbass rightard to know shit about
>> anything) and that's still way more efficient than burning gasoline.
>
>Never trut anyone who uses the terms dumbass, rightard and shit to be
Oh look, another dumbass rightard too stupid and too lazy to learn
the truth about anything.
Bill Graham
It is used for electricity generation all over the world. In France, for
example, most of their electricity is generated by nuclear power. Anyplace
that doesn't have much in the way of oil/natural gas or coal deposits will
use nuclear power sooner or later. It is the only practical alternative.
Bill Graham
"Shooting it into the sun" isn't practical....It takes more energy to do
that than it produces for us. If you drive from Wendover, Nevada to Salt
Lake City, (Hwy 40) or from Carson /City to Salt Lake City, (Hwy 50) you
will know exactly what to do with nuclear waste before you get to Salt Lake.
Putting it into the ocean (or even near the ocean) is the wrong thing to do
with it.
Bill Graham
It takes more than "a few acres", but you know, it doesn't have to be rain
forest. Anything that grows uses up carbon dioxide in the air. So we can
grow corn, wheat, soy beans, oats.....anything that we or the chickens and
cows can eat, and it will help the global warming problem......
Bill Graham
Coal, Gas, and Petrolium all pump CO2 into the air, and that's what we are
worried about. Of the others, the only one that can practically be increased
is nuclear power. the others are fixed, or a joke, one of the two......We
have to bite the bullet and start building nuclear power plants if we want
to stop pumping CO2 into the air.......
Bill Graham
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4d4de536$0$10543
> $742e...@news.sonic.net:
>
>> Bill Graham <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> betweentheeyes wrote:
>>
>>>> Hey fella, I live down here. I'm running out an buying an
>>>> electric car tomorrow just to counteract all the stuff you
>>>> suggest.
>>>
>>> Don't forget that 60% of all the electricity we produce comes from
>>> burning coal. So, when you drive an electric car 100 miles, 60 of
>>> those miles come from burning coal.
>>
>> It's actually 45% (never trust a dumbass rightard to know shit about
>> anything) and that's still way more efficient than burning gasoline.
>>
>
> Never trut anyone who uses the terms dumbass, rightard and shit to be
> telling you something that resembles reality. If he had facts on his
> side he would present them.
>
> The adhominem and profanity is meant to bully you and stifle debate.
>
> Yawn, Ray, I'm not impressed.
Some twenty years ago, it was 60%, and that's where I got that
figure.....Out of my 20+ year ago memory. Today, I will buy 45%. but in any
case, we will have to go nuclear power in order to continue using the gobs
of energy we do without polluting the air with CO2.
Bill Graham
Have you ever seen a space shot? All that fire and smoke comes from burning
Hydrogen and Oxygen. It is produced by passing huge amounts of electricity
through water, and freezing the Oxygen out of the air, which also takes gobs
of electricity. I would guess that more energy would be wasted "shooting the
waste into space" that we got from the nuclear power plant to begin with. I
go for dumping it in the middle of the Nevada/Utah desert, and guarding it
with Marines for the rest of time.....Maybe they will come up with a good
use for it in the next 100 years or so.....
SaPeIsMa
news:pOudneNkabuoodPQ...@giganews.com...
There is new evidence to show that as CO2 was trapped at an increasing rate
during the Plague years, because fields turned fallow and became forested as
the population dropped.
And this trapping of the CO2 may have participated in the cooling of the
planet and the resultant cold period of the Dark Ages.
Then as the European population started coming back, forests were again
replaced with farm fields, and the wood was burned, thus releasing the
carbon, which brought about the warmer period that followed.
Maybe we should reconsider that if we attempt to decrease CO2 content, we
will effectively cool the planet to the detriment of all.
Gray Ghost
Fine. How do we get rid of the Neo-Luddites?
Gray Ghost
news:o1ltk6loqodercuno...@4ax.com:
Brilliant. That's what we want to do, launch nuclear waste into the
atmosphere. And if there is even one small error? Maybe a bad O-ring?
Aside from the cost considerations I can think of no scenario where a man
made missile could guaranteed 100% safety and the effects of even one
screwup could be horrific.
Jane_Galt
>> Nuclear is good, if it can be kept safe. Three Miles Island and
>> Chernobyl still makes some a bit scared of the idea of nuclear power.
>
> It is used for electricity generation all over the world. In France, for
> example, most of their electricity is generated by nuclear power. Anyplace
> that doesn't have much in the way of oil/natural gas or coal deposits will
> use nuclear power sooner or later. It is the only practical alternative.
The enviro-nazis only hate the United States though, so France is ok with it.
The fact is, the most radiation that's ever been leaked on U.S. soil, was
from above ground bombs in the 40's and 50's.
--
- Jane Galt
Reporting from Galt's Gulch, somwehere in Colorado...
"Without America there is no "Free World"."
The reason that Progressivism-Socialism-Communism always fail, is that you
eventually run out of other peoples' money.
Obama and the Democrats: continuing the "Progressive" socialist agenda of
borrowing, taxing and insanely spending the country into collapse and global
socialism, in a Cloward-Piven fashion.
Jane_Galt
> "Shooting it into the sun" isn't practical....It takes more energy to do
> that than it produces for us. If you drive from Wendover, Nevada to Salt
> Lake City, (Hwy 40) or from Carson /City to Salt Lake City, (Hwy 50) you
> will know exactly what to do with nuclear waste before you get to Salt
> Lake. Putting it into the ocean (or even near the ocean) is the wrong
> thing to do with it.
>
But wait...it came from the earth! Why not uh...BURY IT?
Jane_Galt
>> Except Gore feels he can offset his production of CO2 by buying a few
>> acres of jungle in South America.
>
> It takes more than "a few acres", but you know, it doesn't have to be rain
> forest. Anything that grows uses up carbon dioxide in the air. So we can
> grow corn, wheat, soy beans, oats.....anything that we or the chickens and
> cows can eat, and it will help the global warming problem......
>
>
Hey I have a great idea. Parts of the world now have food shortages. We don't
have factories anymore in this country but CAN WE GROW FOOD!
I think we should grow lots of food this summer and SELL IT for export,
helping our trade balance and helping the people who need it!
Jane_Galt
> Coal, Gas, and Petrolium all pump CO2 into the air, and that's what we
> are worried about. Of the others, the only one that can practically be
> increased is nuclear power. the others are fixed, or a joke, one of the
> two......We have to bite the bullet and start building nuclear power
> plants if we want to stop pumping CO2 into the air.......
>
>
IF the government and the enviro-nazis would get out of the way and GUARANTEE
that the private sector could build them UNHINDERED, for say the next 30
years, they WOULD be built.
We could power every home, business and car in the country with them, and
eliminate the pollution of coal, gas and oil. No more dependency on people
who hate us, either.
"There is enough nuclear fuel to last far longer than man will inhabit the
earth." - Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Howard Hayden, author of The Energy
Advocate.
But of course the real problem is that the enviro-nazis hate us here, and
they control the Democrat-Socialists.
Jane_Galt
Scout
I suggest before we do that we reprocess the wastes to remove the
transuranic elements which can then reused for fuel rods leaving the
remaining wastes with a vastly shorter dangerous radioactive life on the
close order of 250 years.
Michael Ejercito
> "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote innews:37mdna9FHtJOQ9DQ...@giganews.com:
>
>
>
> > RD Sandman wrote:
> >> "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote in
> >>news:YJ6dnYpEdIm8U9DQ...@giganews.com:
>
> >>> betweentheeyes wrote:
> >>>>> "Michael Ejercito" wrote in message
> >>>>> co m...
>
> >>>>> Currently, some scientist predict that global warming
> >>>>> will greatly
> >>>>> hurt Florida. They claim that "seawater will advance inland
> >>>>> as much as
>
> >>>>> <snip>
>
> >>>>> If this is true, I say we dig burn every ounce of coal,
> >>>>> every chip
> >>>>> of wood, every drop of gasoline. So what if all of the
> >>>>> above happens?
> >>>>> The state of Florida deserves it and worse after what it
> >>>>> did to Barney
> >>>>> Brown.
>
> >>>>> <snip>
>
> >>>>> Michael
>
> >>>> electric car tomorrow just to counteract all the stuff you
> >>>> suggest.
>
> >>> Don't forget that 60% of all the electricity we produce comes from
> >>> burning coal. So, when you drive an electric car 100 miles, 60 of
> >>> those miles come from burning coal.
>
> >> Which I have never seen burn clean.
>
> > Well, they can scrub all the particulate matter out of it now, but it
> > still produces lots of carbon dioxide. And, there is no way to get rid
> > of than except by photosynthetic plant conversion. Nuclear power
> > generation is the real way to go for electricity.....Trouble is, we
> > have billions of tons of coal, and we don't want to throw it away.
> > (Money supercedes logic)
>
> benefit.....I have a problem when some folks say it is a way to produce
> clean energy when it isn't.
>
Can not nuclear waste be diluted by mixing it with glass or
something?
Michael
Scout
Sure, but given the radioactive levels of raw high level wastes it's not
going to do much unless you wish to use a shit load of glass. And mixing
finely ground wastes with a glass substrate is one means already being use
to control accidental enviromental contamination.
In the end, for proper storage we still need to reprocess the raw waste and
remove the transuranic elements. Then what remains is then relatively easy
to control for it's remaining hazardous life.
RD Sandman
news:a5676124-e7c6-4968...@m16g2000prc.googlegroups.com:
> On Feb 6, 10:15�am, RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>> "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote
>> innews:37mdna9FHtJOQ9DQnZ2dnUVZ5oS
> dn...@giganews.com:
Diluting it doesn't remove it, it simply gives it a lower reading on the
measurement. Take a smog pump for example, in your car. It doesn't do a
damn thing about the amount of pollutants your engine generates....it
simply mixes them with more air pulled into the exhaust so that the
resultant reading at the tailpipe looks lower. It is like taking quart
of oil that you would have dumped in the lake and putting it in a 5
gallon container of water and when you dump that in the lake, you can
claim that the solution of oil was a weaker one.
RD Sandman
> RD Sandman wrote:
>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:4s2dnalxjdIofdDQ...@giganews.com:
>>
>>> betweentheeyes wrote:
>>>> "Bill Graham" wrote in message
>>>> news:YJ6dnYpEdIm8U9DQ...@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> betweentheeyes wrote:
>>>>>> "Michael Ejercito" wrote in message
>>>>>> news:54ac872d-0c44-426b-bf02->da5a8f...@r4g2000prm.googlegroups
>>>>>> .c om...
That's true, but the bottom line would be better if that fat ass simply
gave up his lavish lifestyle and polluted less.
RD Sandman
Then we have the ongoing problem of nuclear waste and its 10,000 year
life cycle. The bottom line is that there is really no free lunch. The
two that are the least polluting are wind and solar. Good luck with
birds in your area. I prefer solar...but then I am in sunny Arizona.
Scout
Reprocessing of the wastes....we have the technology....we simply lack the
will to use it.
Michael Ejercito
Michael
Scout
A number of reasons.
Treaty restrictions passed during the cold war which we still obey even
though everyone else doesn't
Possible international backlash on building facility(s) capable of producing
weapons grade material even while we are attempting to prevent others from
doing so.
Inertia of just continuing to do things the same old way rather than rocking
the boat for change (see below)
Fears of enviromentalist protests against the plants, shipping, and/or
production of "weapons grade material".
Costs (ie pretty large up front capital investment)
A lack of any real public drive to change from current policies
A lack of support for nuclear power in general by the public
A concerted effort to restrict, prohibit or at least NIMBY mentality by
enviromentalists and short sighted consumers concerning anything to do with
nuclear
The time, expense and trouble of getting any new nuclear facility approved
or even expansion of existing facilities.
Lack of education among the people concerning this viable option to deal
with nuclear wastes.
Though I do have one request for the next big boom cycle of nuclear plant
building. Establish a STANDARD plan acceptable to all users and stick to it.
Each facility is pretty much a one of these days, and it creates a number of
issues that could be reduced or eliminated by a standard facility design.
Bill Graham
Except the current theory has the CO2 contributing to global warming.....Not
cooling. The theory goes like this: More CO2 traps more heat. More heat
increases the plant life on the higher mountains, and above the Arctic
circle. More plant life absorbs the excess CO2, and brings the average
temperature back down again.....IOW, it is a natural feedback process that
keeps our temperature more or less constant. But there are a few problems.
Water holds more gasses when it is cold that it does when it is warm. So,
when it comes to plant life, the feedback is accelerating the global
warming, and not counteracting it. And, water covers 7/8 of the Earth's
surface, so this is not an insignificant effect. In my humble opinion, they
don't know what they are talking about most of the time, because, when I ask
them questions about this, I get no answers.
Bill Graham
> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote :
>
>
>>> Nuclear is good, if it can be kept safe. Three Miles Island and
>>> Chernobyl still makes some a bit scared of the idea of nuclear
>>> power.
>>
>> It is used for electricity generation all over the world. In France,
>> for example, most of their electricity is generated by nuclear
>> power. Anyplace that doesn't have much in the way of oil/natural gas
>> or coal deposits will use nuclear power sooner or later. It is the
>> only practical alternative.
>
> The enviro-nazis only hate the United States though, so France is ok
> with it.
>
> The fact is, the most radiation that's ever been leaked on U.S. soil,
> was from above ground bombs in the 40's and 50's.
Yes nuclear is the way to go. We have no control over most other countries,
and they are using it. So it is stupid for us to not use it ourselves. Are
we saying that we can't trust our own engineers to build safe N.P. plants?
And disposing of the waste anywhere near the oceans is a very stupid idea.
It should be disposed of as far from the ocian as possible, in as dry a
location as possible. The middle of the Nevada desert is my place of
choice.....In a concrete bunker in the middle of nowhere, guarded by
marines. There is no reason why it wouldn't be safe there for a thousand
years. Certainly, that would be a loty better than dumping it at sea, where
the salt water and wave action will eat into the barrels and distribute it
all over the world in time. But, for some reason I don't understand, that's
where everyone want's to put it....Go figure.
Bill Graham
> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote :
>
>> "Shooting it into the sun" isn't practical....It takes more energy
>> to do that than it produces for us. If you drive from Wendover,
>> Nevada to Salt Lake City, (Hwy 40) or from Carson /City to Salt Lake
>> City, (Hwy 50) you will know exactly what to do with nuclear waste
>> before you get to Salt Lake. Putting it into the ocean (or even near
>> the ocean) is the wrong thing to do with it.
>>
>
> But wait...it came from the earth! Why not uh...BURY IT?
Sure. That's what we should do with it. But we should keep track of what is
buried where, and monitor the radiation level of the site we put it on/in.
In time, it will become less and less radioactive, but the half life of some
of it extends into the thousands of years. It is possible the sometime in
the future someone will come up with a way to use it, but if not, then the
middle of the Nevada salt flats is an ideal location for it.
Bill Graham
> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote :
>
>
>>> Except Gore feels he can offset his production of CO2 by buying a
>>> few acres of jungle in South America.
>>
>> It takes more than "a few acres", but you know, it doesn't have to
>> be rain forest. Anything that grows uses up carbon dioxide in the
>> air. So we can grow corn, wheat, soy beans, oats.....anything that
>> we or the chickens and cows can eat, and it will help the global
>> warming problem......
>>
>>
>
> Hey I have a great idea. Parts of the world now have food shortages.
> We don't have factories anymore in this country but CAN WE GROW FOOD!
>
> I think we should grow lots of food this summer and SELL IT for
> export, helping our trade balance and helping the people who need it!
That's what we have been doing all of my life. When I was 17, back in 1952,
my mother and I drove from New York to California, and I made some
disparaging comment about the intelligence of people in the midwest. My
mother said, "Don't think too badly of these people....They are, after all,
feeding the whole world." We were feed them then, and we are still feeding a
hell of a lot of them.
Bill Graham
> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote :
>
>> Coal, Gas, and Petrolium all pump CO2 into the air, and that's what
>> we are worried about. Of the others, the only one that can
>> practically be increased is nuclear power. the others are fixed, or
>> a joke, one of the two......We have to bite the bullet and start
>> building nuclear power plants if we want to stop pumping CO2 into
>> the air.......
>>
>>
>
> IF the government and the enviro-nazis would get out of the way and
> GUARANTEE that the private sector could build them UNHINDERED, for
> say the next 30 years, they WOULD be built.
>
> We could power every home, business and car in the country with them,
> and eliminate the pollution of coal, gas and oil. No more dependency
> on people who hate us, either.
>
> "There is enough nuclear fuel to last far longer than man will
> inhabit the earth." - Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Howard Hayden,
> author of The Energy Advocate.
>
> But of course the real problem is that the enviro-nazis hate us here,
> and they control the Democrat-Socialists.
Yes. And, they are still working on fusion as an energy source too.....If
they ever accomplish that, then we will never run out of fuel......
Gray Ghost
984e-c53...@m16g2000prc.googlegroups.com:
We don't lack the will. We have an excess of Luddites.
Why do we continue to import petroleum from and enrich people that hate us
when there is so much in North America?
Why are we the only civilized industrial country in the West that isn't
building nuclear power generation? Which we pioneered and can still do it
better than anybody if we choose to?
SaPeIsMa
But it takes a few years for plant life to reproduce itself to increase it's
numbers to absorb the extra CO2
So there is a slight delay before plant life kicks in and starts sucking up
all the CO2.
Bill Graham
Yes. And they do. But it continues to emit its radiation, as it decays
toward a safer less radioactive state. And, in some cases, this takes
thousands of years. In general, the more dangerous the degree of radiation,
the faster it becomes safe. The radiation consists of individual atoms of
the material becoming "safe" by emmitting a proton and/or a neutron from its
nucleus, and transforming itself into a non-radioactive element. Some atoms
tend to do this more quickly than others. If the atoms do it faster, the
substance is more dangerous, but dissipates faster. If they do it at a
slower rate, then they are less dangerous, but have longer, "half lives" and
take longer to become completely non-radioactive. There is no known way to
speed up the process. All they can do is put it in a "safe", less populated
place and wait until it has completely transformed itself into a
non-radioactive element.
Bill Graham
Yes, but there are a fixed number of watts per square meter that the sun
dumps on the earth....Something like 15 or 17 if I recall correctly. And
that only in the daytime. So, there are certain limitations on solar power.
It would be nice, however, to be able to walk across the desert under the
shade of millions of solar panels 8 or 10 feet above your head.
Bill Graham
Well, this is where the plants get the carbon that constitutes their bulk
from. The CO2 in the air. As soon as a plant starts to grow, it is using up
CO2. The fastest growing plants use it up the fastest and the best. I guess
there is probably some point in an average plants life when it is using it
up the fastest, and I have to admit that I don't know when that is. But it
could be calculated in any given plant species by finding out when it gains
the most weight per day if given the same amount of water every day. (water
usage would screw up the calculation if not accounted for)
Lookout
wrote:
>Lookout wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 15:32:59 -0500, "Scout"
>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>> We should push for such reprocessing as a matter of course.
>>
>> True. And shoot the rest into space.
>
>Have you ever seen a space shot?
Yes I have
>All that fire and smoke comes from burning
>Hydrogen and Oxygen. It is produced by passing huge amounts of electricity
>through water, and freezing the Oxygen out of the air, which also takes gobs
>of electricity. I would guess that more energy would be wasted "shooting the
>waste into space" that we got from the nuclear power plant to begin with. I
>go for dumping it in the middle of the Nevada/Utah desert, and guarding it
>with Marines for the rest of time.....Maybe they will come up with a good
>use for it in the next 100 years or so.....
We're not talking about launching a shuttle.
Lookout
Agreed.
Lookout
wrote:
>"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote :
>
>
>>> Nuclear is good, if it can be kept safe. Three Miles Island and
>>> Chernobyl still makes some a bit scared of the idea of nuclear power.
>>
>> It is used for electricity generation all over the world. In France, for
>> example, most of their electricity is generated by nuclear power. Anyplace
>> that doesn't have much in the way of oil/natural gas or coal deposits will
>> use nuclear power sooner or later. It is the only practical alternative.
>
>The enviro-nazis only hate the United States though, so France is ok with it.
Including the republican led White Houses that have dominated the past
30 years.
Lookout
wrote:
>Jane_Galt wrote:
Nevada doesn't want it.
Lookout
wrote:
>Lookout wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 10:39:58 -0600, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> At one time, not so long ago, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>>> Hey fella, I live down here. I'm running out an buying an
>>>>>>> electric car tomorrow just to counteract all the stuff you
>>>>>>> suggest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't forget that 60% of all the electricity we produce comes from
>>>>>> burning coal. So, when you drive an electric car 100 miles, 60 of
>>>>>> those miles come from burning coal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which I have never seen burn clean.
>>>>
>>>> Well, they can scrub all the particulate matter out of it now, but
>>>> it still produces lots of carbon dioxide. And, there is no way to
>>>> get rid of than except by photosynthetic plant conversion. Nuclear
>>>> power generation is the real way to go for electricity.....Trouble
>>>> is, we have billions of tons of coal, and we don't want to throw it
>>>> away. (Money supercedes logic)
>>>
>>> Nuclear is good, if it can be kept safe. Three Miles Island and
>>> Chernobyl still makes some a bit scared of the idea of nuclear power.
>>
>> We have to shoot the nuclear left over into space. It could be safely
>> done from many equatorial islands on small, proven reliable rockets.
>> We moved TONS of chemical waste safely to Enewetak for disposal and we
>> could do the same and then shoot them off to the sun.
>
>"Shooting it into the sun" isn't practical....It takes more energy to do
>that than it produces for us.
Bullshit. A solar inclination is the easiest to obtain.
>If you drive from Wendover, Nevada to Salt
>Lake City, (Hwy 40) or from Carson /City to Salt Lake City, (Hwy 50) you
>will know exactly what to do with nuclear waste before you get to Salt Lake.
>Putting it into the ocean (or even near the ocean) is the wrong thing to do
>with it.
Nevada doesn't want it.
Lookout
<grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Lookout <mrLoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:o1ltk6loqodercuno...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 10:39:58 -0600, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>At one time, not so long ago, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>>>> Hey fella, I live down here. I'm running out an buying an
>>>>>>> electric car tomorrow just to counteract all the stuff you
>>>>>>> suggest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't forget that 60% of all the electricity we produce comes from
>>>>>> burning coal. So, when you drive an electric car 100 miles, 60 of
>>>>>> those miles come from burning coal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which I have never seen burn clean.
>>>>
>>>>Well, they can scrub all the particulate matter out of it now, but it
>>>>still produces lots of carbon dioxide. And, there is no way to get rid
>>>>of than except by photosynthetic plant conversion. Nuclear power
>>>>generation is the real way to go for electricity.....Trouble is, we
>>>>have billions of tons of coal, and we don't want to throw it away.
>>>>(Money supercedes logic)
>>>
>>> Nuclear is good, if it can be kept safe. Three Miles Island and
>>>Chernobyl still makes some a bit scared of the idea of nuclear power.
>>
>> We have to shoot the nuclear left over into space. It could be safely
>> done from many equatorial islands on small, proven reliable rockets.
>> We moved TONS of chemical waste safely to Enewetak for disposal and we
>> could do the same and then shoot them off to the sun.
>>
>
>Brilliant. That's what we want to do, launch nuclear waste into the
>atmosphere. And if there is even one small error? Maybe a bad O-ring?
It goes into the ocean incased in a shell that can handle the splash.
It sits in the ocean until we can recover it.
>
>Aside from the cost considerations I can think of no scenario where a man
>made missile could guaranteed 100% safety and the effects of even one
>screwup could be horrific.
I'm sure you can't.
Then again, you're a fucking idiot.
Lookout
No
Ray Fischer
> "Scout"
>>We should push for such reprocessing as a matter of course.
>
>True. And shoot the rest into space.
Would you like to know why that's a stupid idea?
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
rfis...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
Bill Graham
Nuclear waste is heavy, and not at all pure....If you "purefied" it, it
would be a lot more radioactive and dangerous. It is mixed with a lot of
inactive, but heavy material. It would take just as big, if not a bigger,
engine to shoot it into the sun as it does to orbit a few astronaouts. Much
cheaper and more practicle to put it in a bunker in the middle of the Nevada
desert. Also safer, because your space shot might go awray, and dump the
waste into the ocean, or in the middle of New York City.
Bill Graham
If its on government land, they will have no choice. Besides, where I'm
talking about there is nobody and nothing but lizards, and not very many of
those.....
Jane_Galt
> Yes nuclear is the way to go. We have no control over most other
> countries, and they are using it. So it is stupid for us to not use it
> ourselves. Are we saying that we can't trust our own engineers to build
> safe N.P. plants?
I've talked to them, they have safe clean pre-packaged and approved designs
now.
They could be privately funded by investment consortiums IF the government
and enviro-nazis would JUST get out of the way and ensure that they
wouldn't lose their investment to legal meddling.
> And disposing of the waste anywhere near the oceans is
> a very stupid idea. It should be disposed of as far from the ocian as
> possible, in as dry a location as possible. The middle of the Nevada
> desert is my place of choice.....In a concrete bunker in the middle of
> nowhere, guarded by marines. There is no reason why it wouldn't be safe
> there for a thousand years. Certainly, that would be a loty better than
> dumping it at sea, where the salt water and wave action will eat into
> the barrels and distribute it all over the world in time. But, for some
> reason I don't understand, that's where everyone want's to put it....Go
> figure.
It came from the earth, just put it back there.
But the engineers I've talked to, also tell me that almost all of it can be
recycled with modern reactor techniques, and used over and over.
--
- Jane Galt
Reporting from Galt's Gulch, somwehere in Colorado...
"Without America there is no "Free World"."
The reason that Progressivism-Socialism-Communism always fail, is that you
eventually run out of other peoples' money.
Obama and the Democrats: continuing the "Progressive" socialist agenda of
borrowing, taxing and insanely spending the country into collapse and
global socialism, in a Cloward-Piven fashion.
Jane_Galt
> Why do we lack the will to use it?
>
Not a matter of that. The enviro-nazis have kept new plant construction
harrassed into submission for 30 years now, with frivolous lawsuits.
We need laws to stop their harrassing lawsuits and guarantee that if private
investors put their retirement money into the plants, they can be built fast
and profitably.
They already have safe clean and pre-approved packaged designs.
We could run the whole country, every home and car, off the stuff,
independently of foreign oil, for 2 billion years!
"There is enough nuclear fuel to last far longer than man will inhabit the
earth." - Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Howard Hayden, author of The Energy
Advocate
--
Jane_Galt
> We don't lack the will. We have an excess of Luddites.
>
> Why do we continue to import petroleum from and enrich people that hate us
> when there is so much in North America?
I swear, it seems like these are the same people who want to collapse and
globalize the United States and it's part of the same agenda.
> Why are we the only civilized industrial country in the West that isn't
> building nuclear power generation? Which we pioneered and can still do it
> better than anybody if we choose to?
Luddites. People who want to see everyone living in mud huts and picking
berries.
Jane_Galt
> But it takes a few years for plant life to reproduce itself to increase
> it's numbers to absorb the extra CO2
> So there is a slight delay before plant life kicks in and starts sucking
> up all the CO2.
Why? Plants take it in all the time.
The whole MMGW - "Man Made Global Warming" theory is nonsense.
The oceans heat, it evaporates water causing more rain and snow, which cools
things off.
Jane_Galt
>> Hey I have a great idea. Parts of the world now have food shortages.
>> We don't have factories anymore in this country but CAN WE GROW FOOD!
>>
>> I think we should grow lots of food this summer and SELL IT for
>> export, helping our trade balance and helping the people who need it!
>
> That's what we have been doing all of my life. When I was 17, back in
> 1952, my mother and I drove from New York to California, and I made some
> disparaging comment about the intelligence of people in the midwest. My
> mother said, "Don't think too badly of these people....They are, after
> all, feeding the whole world." We were feed them then, and we are still
> feeding a hell of a lot of them.
I used to be a liberal and disrespected country folks - farmers.
I was wrong. I learned the truth one year, years ago, when in January, I
went into a big software section and found it empty. I asked what had
happened to the software. They said that because the National Western was
in town ( this is Denver ) all the shelves had been emptied of software.
That was before a lot of it was downloaded, and we used to buy it in the
stores.
So I started learning more about the people. Many of them go off to college
and get agricultural degrees, so they can come back and farm intelligently
and scientifically. It's not the same as in the 1930's Great Depression
era.
No need to pay them not to grow things anymore, subsidies should be ended.
They learn in college what to grow and how to turn profits.
Jane_Galt
The enviro-nazis won't allow that to be built either. And we would never
run out of fuel now.
"There is enough nuclear fuel to last far longer than man will inhabit the
earth." - Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Howard Hayden, author of The
Energy Advocate
You DO realize that the enviro-nazis won't even allow transmission lines to
be run from WIND FARMS, to bring the power to the grid?
These are people who want to shut down American civilization.
Jane_Galt
>
> Yes, but there are a fixed number of watts per square meter that the sun
> dumps on the earth....Something like 15 or 17 if I recall correctly. And
> that only in the daytime. So, there are certain limitations on solar
> power. It would be nice, however, to be able to walk across the desert
> under the shade of millions of solar panels 8 or 10 feet above your
> head.
Fantasy. The Energy Advocate showed the math, you'd have to cover every inch
of the U.S. with panels, and the sun still doesn't shine at night. It's not
cost effective, OR the private free market would be doing it.
Gray Ghost
news:Xns9E86519CBFFJa...@216.196.97.142:
> Gray Ghost <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote :
>
>> We don't lack the will. We have an excess of Luddites.
>>
>> Why do we continue to import petroleum from and enrich people that hate
>> us when there is so much in North America?
>
> I swear, it seems like these are the same people who want to collapse
> and globalize the United States and it's part of the same agenda.
>
>> Why are we the only civilized industrial country in the West that isn't
>> building nuclear power generation? Which we pioneered and can still do
>> it better than anybody if we choose to?
>
> Luddites. People who want to see everyone living in mud huts and picking
> berries.
The idiots don't even know what they want. They have a romanticized view of
preindustrial society that has no relation to reality.
I've seen 2 people in life REALLY get it.
Once they had some international fair on the Mall in Dc. My gal pal at the
time was already pretty clued in, but when we went there they had these
native dwellings from Africa that again, they were trying romanticize. Mud
walled huts with thatched roofs. I just asked her to imagine what the
average of her condo and that hut was and to realize that is the end result
for the global redistributionists.
Second my sister and brother in law did the doctors without borders thing
years ago, to Honduras or one of the CA countries. My sister had been what
we call (not in a flattering way) an (IAP) Italian American Princess. Her
heart was in the right place but nothing she had experienced had prepared
her for what she saw. She saw what large numbers of the world population
experience 24/7/365. Thatched huts with mud floors. Soldiers dissappearing
people. Poverty the like of which the idiots in this country have no
conception of. Poverty that makes the poorest American look like a
Rockefeller in comparison.
She lives her life comfortable and with no guilt.
Ray Fischer
>"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote :
>
>
>>
>> Yes, but there are a fixed number of watts per square meter that the sun
>> dumps on the earth....Something like 15 or 17 if I recall correctly. And
>> that only in the daytime. So, there are certain limitations on solar
>> power. It would be nice, however, to be able to walk across the desert
>> under the shade of millions of solar panels 8 or 10 feet above your
>> head.
>
>Fantasy. The Energy Advocate showed the math, you'd have to cover every inch
Rightard rule #1: lie, lie again, lie more, lie about lying.
Jane_Galt
>> Luddites. People who want to see everyone living in mud huts and
>> picking berries.
>
> The idiots don't even know what they want. They have a romanticized view
> of preindustrial society that has no relation to reality.
>
> I've seen 2 people in life REALLY get it.
>
> Once they had some international fair on the Mall in Dc. My gal pal at
> the time was already pretty clued in, but when we went there they had
> these native dwellings from Africa that again, they were trying
> romanticize. Mud walled huts with thatched roofs. I just asked her to
> imagine what the average of her condo and that hut was and to realize
> that is the end result for the global redistributionists.
>
> Second my sister and brother in law did the doctors without borders
> thing years ago, to Honduras or one of the CA countries. My sister had
> been what we call (not in a flattering way) an (IAP) Italian American
> Princess. Her heart was in the right place but nothing she had
> experienced had prepared her for what she saw. She saw what large
> numbers of the world population experience 24/7/365. Thatched huts with
> mud floors. Soldiers dissappearing people. Poverty the like of which the
> idiots in this country have no conception of. Poverty that makes the
> poorest American look like a Rockefeller in comparison.
>
> She lives her life comfortable and with no guilt.
>
Well we agree on that one brother.
Mike Merritt
It's Government land. They should have no say in the matter.
Mike Merritt
He said "ENERGY" to get it there, (if it doesn't blow up getting there)
not how to aim it, you retard.
>>If you drive from Wendover, Nevada to Salt
>>Lake City, (Hwy 40) or from Carson /City to Salt Lake City, (Hwy 50) you
>>will know exactly what to do with nuclear waste before you get to Salt Lake.
>>Putting it into the ocean (or even near the ocean) is the wrong thing to do
>>with it.
>
>
> Nevada doesn't want it.
_Some_ Nevadans don't want it. They should have no say in the matter,
anyway.
And
1) The proposed dump is in Nye County, deep inside the Yucca mountains
2) Hwy 50 doesn't go anywhere near Salt Lake City.
Mike Merritt
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!
>
>>Aside from the cost considerations I can think of no scenario where a man
>>made missile could guaranteed 100% safety and the effects of even one
>>screwup could be horrific.
>
>
> I'm sure you can't.
> Then again, you're a fucking idiot.
Oh, Lookout, You calling someone an idiot is a compliment.
Mike Merritt
> Lookout <mrLoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"Scout"
>
>
>>>We should push for such reprocessing as a matter of course.
>>
>>True. And shoot the rest into space.
>
>
> Would you like to know why that's a stupid idea?
He's been told a hundred times by a hundred people, but he has everybody
"filtered", so he thinks he won his "arguement."
Scout
Hell, are you aware that the enviro-fanatics are fighting wind farms because
they ruin the view, and kill birds?
Gray Ghost
news:1ni1l69blj14sr9if...@4ax.com:
Find a real, reputable engineer or scientist who isn't a crank that thinks
this is anything less then insane.
Michael Ejercito
wrote:
> Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:11fe6402-af7a-47ec-
> 984e-c53bf9136...@m16g2000prc.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 11:46 am, "Scout"
> ><me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> >> RD Sandman wrote:
> >> > "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote in
>
> >> >> RD Sandman wrote:
> >> >>> Coal - 44.5%
> >> >>> Gas - 23.4%
> >> >>> Petroleum - 1.0%
> >> >>> Nuclear - 20.3%
> >> >>> Hydro-Elec - 6.9%
> >> >>> Other renew- 3.6%
>
> >> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation
>
> >> >>> Costs for generating electricity:
>
> >> >>> U.S. Electricity Production Costs and Components
>
> >> >>> 1995 - 2009, In 2009 cents per kilowatt-hour
>
> >> >>> Total Production Costs Operations & Maintenance
> >> >>> Costs Fuel Costs
> >> >>> Year Coal Gas Nuclear Petroleum Coal Gas Nuclear Petroleum Coal
> >> >>> Gas Nuclear Petroleum
> >> >>> 1995 2.56 3.73 2.69 5.83 0.61 0.71 1.89 1.64 1.96 3.02 0.80 4.20
> >> >>> 1996 2.41 4.56 2.52 5.93 0.54 0.70 1.80 1.36 1.88 3.86 0.72 4.57
> >> >>> 1997 2.33 4.62 2.64 5.33 0.52 0.67 1.93 1.16 1.81 3.95 0.71 4.17
> >> >>> 1998 2.28 4.04 2.45 3.75 0.55 0.61 1.75 0.72 1.73 3.44 0.70 3.03
> >> >>> 1999 2.20 4.37 2.21 4.50 0.52 0.51 1.57 1.02 1.67 3.86 0.64 3.47
> >> >>> 2000 2.15 7.24 2.16 6.48 0.51 0.57 1.56 0.80 1.63 6.67 0.60 5.69
> >> >>> 2001 2.20 7.30 2.05 5.99 0.54 0.64 1.48 0.82 1.66 6.66 0.56 5.17
> >> >>> 2002 2.18 4.63 2.01 5.71 0.55 0.62 1.49 0.93 1.63 4.01 0.53 4.78
> >> >>> 2003 2.15 6.37 1.98 6.86 0.55 0.66 1.44 1.09 1.60 5.72 0.53 5.77
> >> >>> 2004 2.23 6.40 1.93 6.52 0.57 0.55 1.41 0.98 1.66 5.85 0.53 5.54
> >> >>> 2005 2.42 7.99 1.87 8.94 0.57 0.53 1.38 0.97 1.85 7.47 0.49 7.97
> >> >>> 2006 2.52 6.91 1.90 10.31 0.59 0.54 1.42 1.38 1.93 6.37 0.49 8.93
> >> >>> 2007 2.57 6.68 1.89 10.78 0.60 0.52 1.39 1.45 1.96 6.16 0.50 9.33
> >> >>> 2008 2.80 7.80 1.96 17.63 0.60 0.53 1.46 1.94 2.20 7.27 0.51 15.69
> >> >>> 2009 2.97 5.00 2.03 12.37 0.67 0.56 1.46 2.55 2.30 4.44 0.57 9.82
>
> >> >>> Production Costs = Operations and Maintenance Costs + Fuel Costs.
> >> >>> Production costs do not include indirect costs and are based on
>
> >> >>> FERC Form 1 filings submitted by regulated utilities. Production
> >> >>> costs are modeled for utilities that are not regulated.
>
> >> >>> Source: Ventyx Velocity Suite
>
> >> >>> Updated: 5/10
>
> >> >>>http://tinyurl.com/4hpm67n
>
> >> >> Coal, Gas, and Petrolium all pump CO2 into the air, and that's what
> >> >> we are worried about. Of the others, the only one that can
> >> >> practically be increased is nuclear power. the others are fixed, or
> >> >> a joke, one of the two......We have to bite the bullet and start
> >> >> building nuclear power plants if we want to stop pumping CO2 into
> >> >> the air.......
>
> >> > life cycle.
>
> >> Reprocessing of the wastes....we have the technology....we simply lack
> th
> > e
> >> will to use it.
> > Why do we lack the will to use it?
>
>
> We don't lack the will. We have an excess of Luddites.
>
> Why do we continue to import petroleum from and enrich people that hate us
> when there is so much in North America?
>
> building nuclear power generation? Which we pioneered and can still do it
> better than anybody if we choose to?
alternatives?
How much does it cost to reprocess fuel?
Michael