| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jez" |
| Date: |
28 May 2005 11:09:06 AM |
| Object: |
OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
Nuclear Power? No Thanks!
http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/articles/article_050319.php
The UK Press has been full of speculation for at least a year now that
the Government is ready to launch a new nuclear power programme. The
reaction from many environmental campaigners has, understandably, been
one of disbelief and consequent inactivity.
The Government has been steadfastly sticking to its line that the nuclear
option cannot be ruled out, though there are no proposals to build more
reactors. But over the first few months of 2005 there has been a more
worrying trend which has been beginning to suggest that Blair’s
Government has decided it will support new reactors after the General
Election, widely expected in May. That is why we have decided it is time
to act and have launched this website.
The Independent on Sunday on 13th March 2005 reported that some of the
world’s leading nuclear companies are lining up UK partners to prepare
bids for an £8bn reactor-building programme. The newspaper said the
Government has already signalled that it will publish a new energy White
Paper after the election, which will propose the construction of new
nuclear reactors to replace those now being taken out of service. So
leading nuclear and construction companies, including French nuclear
giant Areva, UK construction company Amec and BNFL’s US arm,
Westinghouse, are already looking for potential partners ahead of any
government move.
The Telegraph, on 16th February in a story headlined “Wind farms are all
very well but nuclear energy is the way forward” said:
“Once the election is safely won, noises from Whitehall suggest that
Labour will face reality and restart investment in nuclear.”
The Telegraph had started the speculation about a new White Paper
following the General Election with a story on 30th January. It said the
Government is understood to have decided not to reveal its plans until
after the election because it believes the issue could be a vote loser.
The newspaper pointed to a MORI opinion poll carried out for the Nuclear
Industry Association which found that public opposition to replacement
nuclear stations is falling. [See also The Times January 18th].
The Independent on 15th February reinforced the rumours that a decision
has been taken with a story headlined “Blair to Press Nuclear Button” or
“Blair set to take Nuclear Option” depending on which edition you read.
According to the paper, Tony Blair is preparing to commit the UK to the
biggest nuclear power programme since the 1960s, after the election,
paving the way for the construction of up to 10 new nuclear stations.
The post-election White Paper would set out the case for nuclear power
but stop short of spelling out how a new generation of reactors would be
financed and built. Such a major about-turn in government policy, said
The Independent, would almost certainly require a Cabinet reshuffle to
bring supporters of nuclear power into the key posts of Secretary of
State for Trade and Industry, and Secretary of State for Environment. The
present incumbents, Patricia Hewitt and Margaret Beckett, are both anti-
nuclear.
We shouldn’t allow this newspaper speculation to disable us by inducing
panic. The Independent on 15th February also detailed the practical
obstacles to reviving nuclear construction, as listed by British Energy,
which it said remain daunting. We will come back to these.
And the last Energy White Paper [view as pdf]– published in February 2003
said:
“… the current economics of nuclear power make it an unattractive option
… and there are important issues of nuclear waste to be resolved … Before
any decision to proceed with the building of new nuclear power stations,
there would need to be the fullest public consultation and the
publication of a white paper setting out the Government’s proposals.”
Solving these problems, if indeed solutions exist, will take time. There
is unlikely to be an announcement about new nuclear stations immediately
after the election. Martin O’Neil, the Labour MP who chairs the House of
Commons Trade and Industry Committee, told the Business on Sunday (27th
February) that a new White Paper is likely around February 2006.
Energy Minister Mike O'Brien told the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA)
Energy Choices 2004 Conference on 2nd December, that it is up to the
private sector to prove that nuclear power is economic:
" ... at the moment there is no commercial proposition on the table... If
we thought that a [nuclear] project was a commercially serious
proposition we would look at it."
He said the nuclear industry would have to come up with an economically
viable proposal before the Government would consider building new nuclear
stations. If new nuclear stations are to be built, the private sector
must come up with the cash. So the reality is that the government would
happily consider an application for nuclear power stations right now from
anyone who wants to build them. But no one is offering.
Even if a White Paper was produced, in the way The Independent suggested,
it would take us no further forward because it would stop short of
spelling out how nuclear power would be financed.
So it is time, not to panic but to get organised. Tom Burke, former
Director of Friends of the Earth in London and former adviser to various
Tory Environment Ministers, said in The Guardian on 2nd March that the
stories about Blair just waiting for the General Election to be over to
put out a White Paper setting out the case for 10 new nuclear reactors
are as much news to No 10 as they are to the public. No doubt they
accurately reflect the aspirations of nuclear advocates, but just because
they were successful in persuading some journalists doesn’t mean we
should panic. It is clearly all part of an orchestrated campaign by the
nuclear industry.
“The brutal truth”, said Burke, “is that no one has yet managed to work
out a way of getting nuclear reactors to burn uranium as effectively as
they burn money - though extraordinary creativity has gone into
concealing this from public view. Nor has anyone yet discovered how to
make atoms work for peace without making them available for war”.
Platts Nuclear News Flashes reported on 28th February on a speech by
BNFL’s Chief Executive, Michael Parker, to a waste management conference
in Tucson, Arizona. Parker said Carbon Taxes would definitely benefit
nuclear power, if the UK were to revisit the issue, but they wouldn't be
enough on their own to encourage new nuclear build in the U.K. He said
discussions are under way now on how to create the right environment for
new nuclear. Does he mean discussions between the UK’s two virtually
bankrupt nuclear companies, British Energy (BE) and British Nuclear Fuels
(BNFL) on how best to get their hands on taxpayers' money to subsidise
new reactors? Or perhaps it is consumers’ money the industry is chasing
by proposing a return to a nuclear or non-fossil fuel obligation? The
Industry is clearly hoping climate change will prove so important that it
will provide the justification for some sort of subsidy to the industry.
It is not hard to understand investors' reluctance to back new nuclear
stations. It’s a huge investment with no return for at least seven years.
According to the nuclear industry the economics of nuclear power – in
terms of electricity generation – begin to make sense if you order 10
reactors: that’s the only way they get the costs on a par with wind
energy. And you have to hope governments remain willing to help fund
waste and decommissioning liabilities and go on underwriting insurance
costs. When the Cabinet Office’s Policy and Innovation Unit (PIU)
examined those claims it didn’t find them believable.
If public money is going to have to be spent to drive carbon out of the
economy, then any government is going to want the biggest carbon bang for
its buck. Nuclear power is probably one of the least efficient ways of
spending our money. Investment in energy efficiency typically displaces
up to seven times the amount of carbon dioxide as investment in nuclear
power. Over coming months this website will provide information on why
nuclear power isn’t the answer to climate change.
In setting out the practical obstacles to a nuclear revival to The
Independent, British Energy mentioned four barriers.
First Britain needs an agreed nuclear waste management policy. The
Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) is working towards
making its recommendations on waste management options to the Government
by July 2006. It is difficult to see the sense in a new Energy White
Paper until after we have had time to digest these recommendations. We
already know from CoRWM’s work on the Radioactive Waste Inventory that a
programme of ten new reactors would more than double the amount of high
level waste or spent fuel we will be left to deal with – depending on
whether spent fuel continues to be reprocessed or not, which it almost
certainly won’t be.
Gordon MacKerron, Chair of CoRWM has pointed out that the nuclear waste
issue will not be resolved in July 2006. This might be a significant
moment in the process, but CoRWM is only the ‘front-end’ of a very long
process – the issue will not be resolved just because recommendations
have been made on the best option for nuclear waste management. It is
quite likely that a site selection process will be required after July
2006. Environment Minister, Elliot Morley has explained
[Government’s Response to House of Lords Select Committee on Science and
Technology report on “Radioactive Waste Management” page9 [view as pdf]
how the Government intends to move forward:
“Once CoRWM’s recommendations have been delivered in July 2006,
Government has decided policy in light of it, and the facility or
facilities required are clear, we foresee that the process and criteria
to be adopted for a site selection will also be the subject of discussion
in an open and transparent way.”
Second, BE says there needs to be an agreed reactor technology approved
by UK regulatory authorities. If nuclear stations are given the go-ahead,
the untried and untested BNFL/Westinghouse AP1000 design would still have
to be licensed by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII). There
might be other designs in contention too, like the Canadian Advanced
Candu Reactor or the French European Pressurised Water Reactor. It would
take the NII at least two or three years. But the NII is short on staff
and resources, meaning licensing and preparing for subsequent planning
inquiries could be very problematic. [See Sunday Herald 6th February
“Nuclear Watchdog exposes Safety Crisis” by Rob Edwards]
Third, BE says we need a planning system which deals with planning issues
rather than technical and safety ones – in other words the time spent on
public inquiries needs to be reduced, curtailing the one chance the
public has to have a democratic input into this process. Any changes to
the planning process will be very controversial for the Government to
introduce.
Finally BE says it needs a market structure which supports investment in
new plant. Apart from wanting subsidies, as already discussed, BE is
possibly eyeing jealously the low-cost bank loans and export credit
guarantees, received by the Finnish utility Teollisuuden Voima Oy (TVO)
and Areva and Siemens, suppliers of the EPR reactor-type being built in
Finland. These are currently the subject of a complaint by the European
Renewable Energies Federation (EREF) [view as pdf] to the EC and calls
have been made for the EC to investigate illegal State Aids.
But these are just the barriers which BE is prepared to admit to. New
Nuclear Monitor – the occasional publication of the Nuclear Free Local
Authorities – deals extensively with the hurdles to a nuclear revival. As
New Nuclear Monitor puts it - the public will need to be convinced that
the new generation of reactors will have an acceptable standard of safety
and security. For example there should be no physically credible events
which could require off-site actions. This is likely to require the
development of reactor designs that could survive high impact events,
such as the deliberate crashing of a commercial jet airliner. After
September 11th 2001 one might have expected that new reactors would be
designed to be less vulnerable to terrorist attack. With the
BNFL/Westinghouse AP1000 design, the reactor type most likely to be built
in the UK, the reverse appears to be the case. It is called an inherently
safe system, but there is nothing inherently safe about highly hazardous
plant, which has a fuel core packed with highly radioactive spent fuel.
In fact, the suspicion is that the AP1000 design is more about saving
money than improving safety. The AP1000 is basically a type of
“Pressurised Water Reactor” (PWR), like the Sizewell B reactor, but with
many of the safety systems stripped out. Major cost savings perhaps, but
by sacrificing some of the structural integrity of the dome, the AP1000
could be less able to withstand accidents and deliberate actions such as
aircraft impact and nearby explosion.
With reprocessing extremely unlikely to be the chosen nuclear waste
method for a new generation of reactors, each reactor will have a spent
fuel pond nearby, similar to Sizewell B’s which represents ten times the
radioactive inventory released during Chernobyl.
The public is going to find it very hard to understand why, if the
situation is so serious with regard to terrorism that we need to lock up
suspects without trial, or place people under house arrest and admit
evidence obtained under torture, and yet the government appears to be
very relaxed about the possibility of a large aircraft, full of fuel,
flying into a nuclear reactor – so relaxed that we can contemplate the
creation of 10 more potential Chernobyls on British soil.
Over the past couple of years the news has been full of stories which
show the intimate connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
Developments in Iran, North Korea, India and Pakistan highlight the
holier than thou “Do as I say – Not as I do” attitude of the UK and US,
and other weapons states. Although there may not be any immediate danger
of new nuclear reactors in the UK leading to a proliferation of nuclear
weapons, every time we in the West build a new nuclear facility, it
justifies the construction of facilities in other countries which may be
used as a smoke screen for a clandestine nuclear weapons programme.
Sellafield has a stockpile of over 60 tonnes of UK-owned weapons-useable
civil plutonium which could climb to over 100 tonnes by about 2012. And
yet Britain has absolutely no use for it. If there is a new reactor
programme in the UK there is a risk that at least some of them would be
fuelled with plutonium - MOX fuel (perhaps 100%). This will mean armed
convoys delivering the fuel. We’ve already been forced to accept that
armed Atomic Energy Constabulary police officers should guard all our
nuclear facilities, and waste transports. These police also have the
power to go in hot pursuit of suspects. Armed MOX convoys will be yet
another chipping away of our civil liberties and for what? The armed
convoy that recently transported the US plutonium 600 miles across France
to be converted into MOX was a farce. [See New Scientist News 15th March
2005]. At one point the convoy pulled into a petrol station for
refuelling. Any terrorist armed with a cigarette lighter could have
caused a disaster if so inclined.
Logically the world would have to separate plutonium from spent fuel and
build fast reactors – powered by weapons- useable plutonium - if nuclear
power is to make a significant contribution to reducing carbon emissions
- because recoverable supplies of uranium will probably only last around
another 60 years at current rates of consumption unless we start making
use of plutonium. [See OECD Nuclear Energy Agency]
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – along with several other
commentators - has pointed to the “security nightmare” caused by trying
to deal with climate change by building nukes. [See Greenpeace] Reason
enough on its own to reject the nuclear option.
Rather than panicking, our contribution to halting the current drive
towards re-starting nuclear construction in the UK, is this website,
which we hope will provide you with the well-referenced information you
need to join the campaign, and the inspiration to actually take some
action. If you remember the old SCRAM [Scottish Campaign to Resist the
Atomic Menace] Safe Energy Journal which was published between 1977 and
1998 you should have an idea of the ethos behind this website. There are
several sources of information on the case against building new nuclear
stations. If you only have the time or the inclination to read short
briefings this is not the site for you. We hope to be able to provide a
source of information for people who want and need the detail. You’ll
find links to other websites in the Online Resources Section. The links
will also point you to those local campaigns, which have their own
websites.
Lets work together to make sure the recent pro-nuclear campaign heralds
the last final gasp of a dying industry, rather than a nuclear
renaissance.
No2nuclearpower editorial team
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
28 May 2005 03:07:37 PM |
|
|
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
Nuclear Power? No Thanks!
Well, it's not like the UK hasn't cut its own throat before.
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
28 May 2005 06:53:03 PM |
|
|
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:87wtpjqfli.fsf@drizzle.com:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
Nuclear Power? No Thanks!
Well, it's not like the UK hasn't cut its own throat before.
So I guess your all for Nuclear ?
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
31 May 2005 11:03:35 AM |
|
|
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:87wtpjqfli.fsf@drizzle.com:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
Nuclear Power? No Thanks!
Well, it's not like the UK hasn't cut its own throat before.
So I guess your all for Nuclear ?
Compared to the alternatives, yes. We can suck the power out of
the wind, which, if it were to make even a small dent in our energy
needs would be environmentally disastrous; we can do similarly with
tidal or oceanic streams, which would also be environmentally
disastrous. We can stick to oil and coal, but that's not a long-term
solution. The only "free" energy left is nuclear and space-based solar
collection. Guess which is easier and safer to implement.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/
"The apocalypse may be closer at hand than even John Derbyshire thinks:
what the hell is Elf Sternberg doing reading Derb's columns?"
-- Charles Murtaugh
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
01 Jun 2005 09:35:28 AM |
|
|
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:87acmbcrhk.fsf@drizzle.com:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:87wtpjqfli.fsf@drizzle.com:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
Nuclear Power? No Thanks!
Well, it's not like the UK hasn't cut its own throat before.
So I guess your all for Nuclear ?
Compared to the alternatives, yes.
Then your an idiot.
We can suck the power out of
the wind, which, if it were to make even a small dent in our energy
needs would be environmentally disastrous; we can do similarly with
tidal or oceanic streams, which would also be environmentally
disastrous. We can stick to oil and coal, but that's not a long-term
solution. The only "free" energy left is nuclear and space-based solar
collection. Guess which is easier and safer to implement.
Hemp.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
01 Jun 2005 12:41:37 PM |
|
|
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
Hemp.
Hemp as a power source? Or do you propose smoking it as a way
of dulling our senses to the slow degredation of our standards of
living?
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
01 Jun 2005 02:10:48 PM |
|
|
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:877jhevusu.fsf@drizzle.com:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
Hemp.
Hemp as a power source?
http://www.globalhemp.com/Archives/FAQ/industrial_hemp_facts.html
http://www.vianet.net.au/~croft/page7.html
Or do you propose smoking it as a way
of dulling our senses to the slow degredation of our standards of
living?
Clueless.
There's no psychoactive effects from hemp.
http://www.globalhemp.com/Archives/FAQ/index.html
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
01 Jun 2005 02:39:54 PM |
|
|
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:877jhevusu.fsf@drizzle.com:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
Hemp.
Hemp as a power source?
http://www.globalhemp.com/Archives/FAQ/industrial_hemp_facts.html
http://www.vianet.net.au/~croft/page7.html
Neither of those indicate that hemp, as a source of biodiesel,
makes any more sense than corn as biodiesel. Biodiesel as a replacement
for petroleum is a bankrupt concept; we cannot afford to turn 50% of our
corn and 20% of our soybean production over to biodiesel; heck, right
now it takes more BTUs of petroleum to create an acre of biodiesel stock
than one gets out of an acre of biodiesel stock.
Orbital solar, nuclear, or the slow decline of civilization.
Those are your only choices.
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
01 Jun 2005 03:57:21 PM |
|
|
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:87vf4xvpbp.fsf@drizzle.com:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:877jhevusu.fsf@drizzle.com:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
Hemp.
Hemp as a power source?
http://www.globalhemp.com/Archives/FAQ/industrial_hemp_facts.html
http://www.vianet.net.au/~croft/page7.html
Neither of those indicate that hemp, as a source of biodiesel,
makes any more sense than corn as biodiesel.
many links there, try google for
Industrial hemp uses....
The nazis used to use it to make ethanol in WW2.
The only reason hemp was made illegal in the first place was because it
posed a huge threat to the oil industries, which can be replaced by
hemp.
Some history....
http://www.jackherer.com/chapters.html
Biodiesel as a replacement
for petroleum is a bankrupt concept; we cannot afford to turn 50% of
our corn and 20% of our soybean production over to biodiesel;
3 crops of hemp can be grown in 1 year.
No need of pesticide or fertilizer.
Replenishes the soil, and ideal choice.
heck, right
now it takes more BTUs of petroleum to create an acre of biodiesel
stock than one gets out of an acre of biodiesel stock.
Orbital solar, nuclear, or the slow decline of civilization.
Those are your only choices.
Rubbish.
http://www.ukcia.org/industrial/
http://www.thehia.org/faqs/faq7.htm
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'- Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
01 Jun 2005 04:42:38 PM |
|
|
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
The only reason hemp was made illegal in the first place was because it
posed a huge threat to the oil industries, which can be replaced by
hemp.
I've always heard that it was a threat to the paper pulp
producers, which I'm willing to believe.
Biodiesel is nothing more than environmentally unsound solar,
requiring enormous resources to produce even the small amount already in
use. It's ethanol with another name, and is best described as "burning
your food supply." I'm no fan of petroleum either, but at least it's
not using up precious arable land.
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
06 Jun 2005 12:23:43 PM |
|
|
On 01 Jun 2005 14:42:38 -0700, "Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com>
wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
The only reason hemp was made illegal in the first place was because it
posed a huge threat to the oil industries, which can be replaced by
hemp.
I've always heard that it was a threat to the paper pulp
producers, which I'm willing to believe.
Specifically William Randolph Herst who owned thousands of acres of
forest.
Biodiesel is nothing more than environmentally unsound solar,
requiring enormous resources to produce even the small amount already in
use. It's ethanol with another name, and is best described as "burning
your food supply." I'm no fan of petroleum either, but at least it's
not using up precious arable land.
Elf
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
01 Jun 2005 04:16:40 PM |
|
|
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:87vf4xvpbp.fsf@drizzle.com:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:877jhevusu.fsf@drizzle.com:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
Hemp.
Hemp as a power source?
http://www.globalhemp.com/Archives/FAQ/industrial_hemp_facts.html
http://www.vianet.net.au/~croft/page7.html
Neither of those indicate that hemp, as a source of biodiesel,
makes any more sense than corn as biodiesel. Biodiesel as a
replacement
for petroleum is a bankrupt concept; we cannot afford to turn 50% of
our
corn and 20% of our soybean production over to biodiesel; heck, right
now it takes more BTUs of petroleum to create an acre of biodiesel
stock
than one gets out of an acre of biodiesel stock.
Biomass Fuel
http://www.hempreport.com/tom/industrialhemp/pdf/A_Renewal_of_Common_Sens
eE.pdf
Biomass (all biologically produced matter) conversion to fuel has proven
technically
feasible in laboratory tests and by continuous operation of pilot plants
in field tests
since 1973. In recent years, the production of ethanol – a proven vehicle
fuel – from
cellulosic biomass, such as cereal straw or wood, has moved into the
commercial
demonstration phase. As the “energy crop” is growing, it takes in carbon
dioxide from the air and converts it into organic carbon, which accounts
for most of the fuel value of biomass. When burned, the organic carbon is
converted back to carbon dioxide, creating a closed loop for the
atmospheric carbon. Petroleum, by contrast,
consists of fossil organic carbon. Its combustion thus results in a net
increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The release of carbon
dioxide from the combustion of oil, gas and coal is the main cause of the
greenhouse effect, i.e. the global warming and changes in weather
patterns experienced over the last decades. The use of biomass for energy
is thus a recognized, long-term element in the fight against global
warming.
Various technologies exist to convert biomass into the gaseous or liquid
fuels on
which our economy relies. For example, starch from corn grown in the
midwest has
traditionally been the source of some of the ethanol used as a fuel
additive in the U.S.
Another option for the conversion of cellulosic biomass, such as hemp
stalks, to
ethanol is their hydrolysis to sugar, followed by fermentation and
removal of the
produced ethanol by distillation. The technical and economic viability of
this
technology is currently being investigated in several commercial products
in the U.S.
Because of the unrealistically low price of petroleum, both routes are
currently only
competitive with governmental support. However, technological innovation
and
increasing scarcity of fossil fuels will eventually make fuels from
biomass
competitive.
Depending on variety and growing conditions, hemp is a very effective
producer of
biomass. If hemp is grown for seeds, the biomass represents a valuable
by-product.
This offers new opportunities for farmers and contributes to America’s
energy
reserves. Baling equipment condenses the bulk of hemp stalks, reducing
transportation costs from field to the conversion plant. As is the case
with paper,
processing locations must be located within a 50-mile radius, causing
local
development and creating jobs.
Another interesting read...
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/pdf/small.pdf
http://www.industrialhemp.net/
There's a load of information out there.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
31 May 2005 09:43:51 PM |
|
|
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:87wtpjqfli.fsf@drizzle.com:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
Nuclear Power? No Thanks!
Well, it's not like the UK hasn't cut its own throat before.
So I guess your all for Nuclear ?
Compared to the alternatives, yes. We can suck the power out
of the wind, which, if it were to make even a small dent in our energy
needs would be environmentally disastrous; we can do similarly with
tidal or oceanic streams, which would also be environmentally
disastrous. We can stick to oil and coal, but that's not a long-term
solution. The only "free" energy left is nuclear and space-based
solar collection. Guess which is easier and safer to implement.
Elf
I'm a bit surprised that pebble bed reactors are not getting more press.
A bit surprised because they are cheap, safe and could supply local power at
low cost.
There is essentially zero possibility of a meltdown and they don't require
a huge cadre of people to take care of them.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
02 Jun 2005 01:22:59 AM |
|
|
In article <87acmbcrhk.fsf@drizzle.com>,
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:87wtpjqfli.fsf@drizzle.com:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
Nuclear Power? No Thanks!
Well, it's not like the UK hasn't cut its own throat before.
So I guess your all for Nuclear ?
Compared to the alternatives, yes. We can suck the power out of
the wind, which, if it were to make even a small dent in our energy
needs would be environmentally disastrous; we can do similarly with
tidal or oceanic streams, which would also be environmentally
disastrous. We can stick to oil and coal, but that's not a long-term
solution. The only "free" energy left is nuclear and space-based solar
collection. Guess which is easier and safer to implement.
Nuclear power plants can be built safer, but I question if they are
better for the environment in the long run. What about the waste?
What's happening with fusion these days? Is anyone working on it? If we
ever get it to work, it could solve a lot of problems.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/
"The apocalypse may be closer at hand than even John Derbyshire thinks:
what the hell is Elf Sternberg doing reading Derb's columns?"
-- Charles Murtaugh
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
02 Jun 2005 10:07:48 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 01:22:59 -0500, johac wrote
(in article <jhachm-8DBEB0.23225901062005@news.giganews.com>):
In article <87acmbcrhk.fsf@drizzle.com>,
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:87wtpjqfli.fsf@drizzle.com:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
Nuclear Power? No Thanks!
Well, it's not like the UK hasn't cut its own throat before.
So I guess your all for Nuclear ?
Compared to the alternatives, yes. We can suck the power out of
the wind, which, if it were to make even a small dent in our energy
needs would be environmentally disastrous; we can do similarly with
tidal or oceanic streams, which would also be environmentally
disastrous. We can stick to oil and coal, but that's not a long-term
solution. The only "free" energy left is nuclear and space-based solar
collection. Guess which is easier and safer to implement.
Nuclear power plants can be built safer, but I question if they are
better for the environment in the long run. What about the waste?
What's happening with fusion these days? Is anyone working on it? If we
ever get it to work, it could solve a lot of problems.
I know that Lawrenece-Livermore is working on it, I am pretty sure a number
of other labs around the world are also trying to get it to work.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
³Christians need not wish to get back at atheists, their own life is
punishment enough.³-K.C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
03 Jun 2005 12:49:23 AM |
|
|
In article <0001HW.BEC48AF40008F228F0284550@news.central.cox.net>,
Harry F. Leopold <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 01:22:59 -0500, johac wrote
(in article <jhachm-8DBEB0.23225901062005@news.giganews.com>):
In article <87acmbcrhk.fsf@drizzle.com>,
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:87wtpjqfli.fsf@drizzle.com:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
Nuclear Power? No Thanks!
Well, it's not like the UK hasn't cut its own throat before.
So I guess your all for Nuclear ?
Compared to the alternatives, yes. We can suck the power out of
the wind, which, if it were to make even a small dent in our energy
needs would be environmentally disastrous; we can do similarly with
tidal or oceanic streams, which would also be environmentally
disastrous. We can stick to oil and coal, but that's not a long-term
solution. The only "free" energy left is nuclear and space-based solar
collection. Guess which is easier and safer to implement.
Nuclear power plants can be built safer, but I question if they are
better for the environment in the long run. What about the waste?
What's happening with fusion these days? Is anyone working on it? If we
ever get it to work, it could solve a lot of problems.
I know that Lawrenece-Livermore is working on it, I am pretty sure a number
of other labs around the world are also trying to get it to work.
Yes, but unfortunately I haven't heard of any breakthroughs lately. I
wonder what level of funding was given in the US to fusion research.
Granted that it is a long term project, but the payoff could be so large
that it certainly would be worth the effort. Instead of senseless wars
and missile defense systems that don't work, I'd rather see at least
some of the money go to advanced energy research.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
03 Jun 2005 07:30:29 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 00:49:23 -0500, johac wrote
(in article <jhachm-5E1AE5.22492302062005@news.giganews.com>):
In article <0001HW.BEC48AF40008F228F0284550@news.central.cox.net>,
Harry F. Leopold <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 01:22:59 -0500, johac wrote
(in article <jhachm-8DBEB0.23225901062005@news.giganews.com>):
In article <87acmbcrhk.fsf@drizzle.com>,
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:87wtpjqfli.fsf@drizzle.com:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
Nuclear Power? No Thanks!
Well, it's not like the UK hasn't cut its own throat before.
So I guess your all for Nuclear ?
Compared to the alternatives, yes. We can suck the power out of
the wind, which, if it were to make even a small dent in our energy
needs would be environmentally disastrous; we can do similarly with
tidal or oceanic streams, which would also be environmentally
disastrous. We can stick to oil and coal, but that's not a long-term
solution. The only "free" energy left is nuclear and space-based solar
collection. Guess which is easier and safer to implement.
Nuclear power plants can be built safer, but I question if they are
better for the environment in the long run. What about the waste?
What's happening with fusion these days? Is anyone working on it? If we
ever get it to work, it could solve a lot of problems.
I know that Lawrenece-Livermore is working on it, I am pretty sure a number
of other labs around the world are also trying to get it to work.
Yes, but unfortunately I haven't heard of any breakthroughs lately.
They are not yet at break-even, but they are continuing to plod forward.
I wonder what level of funding was given in the US to fusion research.
No clue.
Granted that it is a long term project, but the payoff could be so large
that it certainly would be worth the effort. Instead of senseless wars
and missile defense systems that don't work, I'd rather see at least
some of the money go to advanced energy research.
Indeed, though I would also like to see some go into solar-power satellites.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
³It¹s not over till the fat whale farts.²
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
04 Jun 2005 01:20:26 AM |
|
|
In article <0001HW.BEC5B7950002755DF0284550@news.central.cox.net>,
Harry F. Leopold <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 00:49:23 -0500, johac wrote
(in article <jhachm-5E1AE5.22492302062005@news.giganews.com>):
In article <0001HW.BEC48AF40008F228F0284550@news.central.cox.net>,
Harry F. Leopold <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 01:22:59 -0500, johac wrote
(in article <jhachm-8DBEB0.23225901062005@news.giganews.com>):
In article <87acmbcrhk.fsf@drizzle.com>,
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:87wtpjqfli.fsf@drizzle.com:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
Nuclear Power? No Thanks!
Well, it's not like the UK hasn't cut its own throat before.
So I guess your all for Nuclear ?
Compared to the alternatives, yes. We can suck the power out of
the wind, which, if it were to make even a small dent in our energy
needs would be environmentally disastrous; we can do similarly with
tidal or oceanic streams, which would also be environmentally
disastrous. We can stick to oil and coal, but that's not a long-term
solution. The only "free" energy left is nuclear and space-based solar
collection. Guess which is easier and safer to implement.
Nuclear power plants can be built safer, but I question if they are
better for the environment in the long run. What about the waste?
What's happening with fusion these days? Is anyone working on it? If we
ever get it to work, it could solve a lot of problems.
I know that Lawrenece-Livermore is working on it, I am pretty sure a
number
of other labs around the world are also trying to get it to work.
Yes, but unfortunately I haven't heard of any breakthroughs lately.
They are not yet at break-even, but they are continuing to plod forward.
I wonder what level of funding was given in the US to fusion research.
No clue.
Granted that it is a long term project, but the payoff could be so large
that it certainly would be worth the effort. Instead of senseless wars
and missile defense systems that don't work, I'd rather see at least
some of the money go to advanced energy research.
Indeed, though I would also like to see some go into solar-power satellites.
Yes, that's a good one too, and also where applicable geothermal energy.
There's a lot of heat energy under our feet, if we just knew better how
to tap into it. The only downside is that some crazy fundy may claim
that we are getting our energy from Hell, so it must be 'evil'.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
04 Jun 2005 01:26:25 AM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-07A0C6.23202603062005@
Yes, that's a good one too, and also where applicable geothermal energy.
There's a lot of heat energy under our feet, if we just knew better how
to tap into it. The only downside is that some crazy fundy may claim
that we are getting our energy from Hell, so it must be 'evil'.
They'll have to be careful when they drill the holes...
http://amightywind.com/hell/aboutsounds.htm
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
04 Jun 2005 01:33:27 AM |
|
|
Katt wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-07A0C6.23202603062005@
Yes, that's a good one too, and also where applicable geothermal energy.
There's a lot of heat energy under our feet, if we just knew better how
to tap into it. The only downside is that some crazy fundy may claim
that we are getting our energy from Hell, so it must be 'evil'.
They'll have to be careful when they drill the holes...
http://amightywind.com/hell/aboutsounds.htm
Katt.
'None of it is true,' [Rendalen] said. 'I fabricated every word of it!'
Rendalen went on to explain that he had visited the US a few weeks
earlier and had seen the host of a Christian television program [on the
Trinity Broadcasting Network] enthusiastically relating the Drilling to
Hell story. He told me: 'I couldn't believe that the hosts really
thought the story was true and that they would broadcast it without
apparently having checked it out.'
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/drilltohellfacts.htm
But, of course, we all already knew that, right? :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
04 Jun 2005 01:35:56 AM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:XWboe.1484$yS2.528@
'None of it is true,' [Rendalen] said. 'I fabricated every word of it!'
Rendalen went on to explain that he had visited the US a few weeks earlier
and had seen the host of a Christian television program [on the Trinity
Broadcasting Network] enthusiastically relating the Drilling to Hell
story. He told me: 'I couldn't believe that the hosts really thought the
story was true and that they would broadcast it without apparently having
checked it out.'
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/drilltohellfacts.htm
But, of course, we all already knew that, right? :-)
Damn. All right then, what about *this* one...?
http://www.av1611.org/hell.html
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
04 Jun 2005 01:41:53 AM |
|
|
Katt wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:XWboe.1484$yS2.528@
'None of it is true,' [Rendalen] said. 'I fabricated every word of it!'
Rendalen went on to explain that he had visited the US a few weeks earlier
and had seen the host of a Christian television program [on the Trinity
Broadcasting Network] enthusiastically relating the Drilling to Hell
story. He told me: 'I couldn't believe that the hosts really thought the
story was true and that they would broadcast it without apparently having
checked it out.'
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/drilltohellfacts.htm
But, of course, we all already knew that, right? :-)
Damn. All right then, what about *this* one...?
http://www.av1611.org/hell.html
I've never seen such horrid web page construction in my life. My eyes
burn from just the very top of the page...
Red text on black? How gauche!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
04 Jun 2005 01:47:26 AM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:R2coe.1552$yS2.621@
http://www.av1611.org/hell.html
I've never seen such horrid web page construction in my life. My eyes
burn from just the very top of the page...
Red text on black? How gauche!
LOL!!!
Daniel, mon brave, what (if anything!) do you reckon is 'meant' by the
famous phrase 'their worm dieth not'...? I don't believe I've ever seen a
sensible (*ha*!) explanation...
Any ideas?
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
04 Jun 2005 01:57:03 AM |
|
|
Katt wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:R2coe.1552$yS2.621@
http://www.av1611.org/hell.html
I've never seen such horrid web page construction in my life. My eyes
burn from just the very top of the page...
Red text on black? How gauche!
LOL!!!
Daniel, mon brave, what (if anything!) do you reckon is 'meant' by the
famous phrase 'their worm dieth not'...? I don't believe I've ever seen a
sensible (*ha*!) explanation...
Any ideas?
Evidently, from the end of Mark 9, the writer became hungry from some
crackers or something.
The end of Mark 9 reads:
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. For every one
shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with
salt. Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith
will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.
Makes me wonder where pepper comes into play... Worms on saltines?
Ewwwww! Salt the salty salt with salty salt!
And pepper!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
06 Jun 2005 12:26:08 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 06:47:26 GMT, "Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net>
wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:R2coe.1552$yS2.621@
http://www.av1611.org/hell.html
I've never seen such horrid web page construction in my life. My eyes
burn from just the very top of the page...
Red text on black? How gauche!
LOL!!!
Daniel, mon brave, what (if anything!) do you reckon is 'meant' by the
famous phrase 'their worm dieth not'...? I don't believe I've ever seen a
sensible (*ha*!) explanation...
Any ideas?
/imp mode
The erection that never ends...... ;)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
04 Jun 2005 09:45:23 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 01:20:26 -0500, johac wrote
(in article <jhachm-07A0C6.23202603062005@news.giganews.com>):
In article <0001HW.BEC5B7950002755DF0284550@news.central.cox.net>,
Harry F. Leopold <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 00:49:23 -0500, johac wrote
(in article <jhachm-5E1AE5.22492302062005@news.giganews.com>):
In article <0001HW.BEC48AF40008F228F0284550@news.central.cox.net>,
Harry F. Leopold <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 01:22:59 -0500, johac wrote
(in article <jhachm-8DBEB0.23225901062005@news.giganews.com>):
In article <87acmbcrhk.fsf@drizzle.com>,
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:87wtpjqfli.fsf@drizzle.com:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
Nuclear Power? No Thanks!
Well, it's not like the UK hasn't cut its own throat before.
So I guess your all for Nuclear ?
Compared to the alternatives, yes. We can suck the power out of
the wind, which, if it were to make even a small dent in our energy
needs would be environmentally disastrous; we can do similarly with
tidal or oceanic streams, which would also be environmentally
disastrous. We can stick to oil and coal, but that's not a long-term
solution. The only "free" energy left is nuclear and space-based solar
collection. Guess which is easier and safer to implement.
Nuclear power plants can be built safer, but I question if they are
better for the environment in the long run. What about the waste?
What's happening with fusion these days? Is anyone working on it? If we
ever get it to work, it could solve a lot of problems.
I know that Lawrenece-Livermore is working on it, I am pretty sure a
number
of other labs around the world are also trying to get it to work.
Yes, but unfortunately I haven't heard of any breakthroughs lately.
They are not yet at break-even, but they are continuing to plod forward.
I wonder what level of funding was given in the US to fusion research.
No clue.
Granted that it is a long term project, but the payoff could be so large
that it certainly would be worth the effort. Instead of senseless wars
and missile defense systems that don't work, I'd rather see at least
some of the money go to advanced energy research.
Indeed, though I would also like to see some go into solar-power satellites.
Yes, that's a good one too, and also where applicable geothermal energy.
There's a lot of heat energy under our feet, if we just knew better how
to tap into it. The only downside is that some crazy fundy may claim
that we are getting our energy from Hell, so it must be 'evil'.
Hell, if Hell existed, and we could tap into it for power, I would be all for
it. It is supposed to last forever, so you would have an eternal source of
power.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
³Damn! I never expected to see this place be armpit-deep in wombats. Kinda
cute as long as you don't move or breath. ;-)³
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
04 Jun 2005 11:14:33 AM |
|
|
Harry F. Leopold <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote in
news:0001HW.BEC728B3000C5845F0284550@news.central.cox.net:
On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 01:20:26 -0500, johac wrote
(in article <jhachm-07A0C6.23202603062005@news.giganews.com>):
Snippage....
Indeed, though I would also like to see some go into solar-power
satellites.
Yes, that's a good one too, and also where applicable geothermal
energy. There's a lot of heat energy under our feet, if we just knew
better how to tap into it. The only downside is that some crazy fundy
may claim that we are getting our energy from Hell, so it must be
'evil'.
Hell, if Hell existed, and we could tap into it for power, I would be
all for it. It is supposed to last forever, so you would have an
eternal source of power.
Well, as oil comes from under the ground, we're already using the fuel of
Hell !
:)
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
04 Jun 2005 11:33:45 PM |
|
|
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:Xns966BAF68FCF9Ahellward@216.196.109
Well, as oil comes from under the ground, we're already using the fuel of
Hell !
No wonder that infamous oil company is called 'Helliburton'!
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
05 Jun 2005 01:26:22 AM |
|
|
In article <Jgvoe.764$ls3.87@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>,
"Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote:
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:Xns966BAF68FCF9Ahellward@216.196.109
Well, as oil comes from under the ground, we're already using the fuel of
Hell !
No wonder that infamous oil company is called 'Helliburton'!
If Helliburton is part of Hell, that must mean that Satan is it's CEO,
or perhaps a former CEO who graduated to bigger things.
Katt.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
05 Jun 2005 01:27:20 AM |
|
|
In article <0001HW.BEC728B3000C5845F0284550@news.central.cox.net>,
Harry F. Leopold <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 01:20:26 -0500, johac wrote
(in article <jhachm-07A0C6.23202603062005@news.giganews.com>):
In article <0001HW.BEC5B7950002755DF0284550@news.central.cox.net>,
Harry F. Leopold <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 00:49:23 -0500, johac wrote
(in article <jhachm-5E1AE5.22492302062005@news.giganews.com>):
In article <0001HW.BEC48AF40008F228F0284550@news.central.cox.net>,
Harry F. Leopold <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 01:22:59 -0500, johac wrote
(in article <jhachm-8DBEB0.23225901062005@news.giganews.com>):
In article <87acmbcrhk.fsf@drizzle.com>,
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:87wtpjqfli.fsf@drizzle.com:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> writes:
Nuclear Power? No Thanks!
Well, it's not like the UK hasn't cut its own throat before.
So I guess your all for Nuclear ?
Compared to the alternatives, yes. We can suck the power out of
the wind, which, if it were to make even a small dent in our energy
needs would be environmentally disastrous; we can do similarly with
tidal or oceanic streams, which would also be environmentally
disastrous. We can stick to oil and coal, but that's not a long-term
solution. The only "free" energy left is nuclear and space-based
solar
collection. Guess which is easier and safer to implement.
Nuclear power plants can be built safer, but I question if they are
better for the environment in the long run. What about the waste?
What's happening with fusion these days? Is anyone working on it? If
we
ever get it to work, it could solve a lot of problems.
I know that Lawrenece-Livermore is working on it, I am pretty sure a
number
of other labs around the world are also trying to get it to work.
Yes, but unfortunately I haven't heard of any breakthroughs lately.
They are not yet at break-even, but they are continuing to plod forward.
I wonder what level of funding was given in the US to fusion research.
No clue.
Granted that it is a long term project, but the payoff could be so large
that it certainly would be worth the effort. Instead of senseless wars
and missile defense systems that don't work, I'd rather see at least
some of the money go to advanced energy research.
Indeed, though I would also like to see some go into solar-power
satellites.
Yes, that's a good one too, and also where applicable geothermal energy.
There's a lot of heat energy under our feet, if we just knew better how
to tap into it. The only downside is that some crazy fundy may claim
that we are getting our energy from Hell, so it must be 'evil'.
Hell, if Hell existed, and we could tap into it for power, I would be all for
it. It is supposed to last forever, so you would have an eternal source of
power.
Shhhh! If the word gets out Dubya will want to invade Hell next!
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Divin Marquis" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Nuclear Power? No Thanks! |
01 Jun 2005 04:34:04 AM |
|
|
Le Tue, 31 May 2005 09:03:35 -0700, Elf M. Sternberg a écrit :
Compared to the alternatives, yes. We can suck the power out of
the wind, which, if it were to make even a small dent in our energy needs
would be environmentally disastrous;
That's not true.
Environmental damage by wind farms has been severely exagerated. Take bird
killing for instance: it doesn't kill more birds than large city buildings
would. Actually, less.
As for the look of it, it's quite subjective; but this can be avoided
anyway by building them offshore.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
