| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
08 Oct 2005 12:43:30 PM |
| Object: |
So who needs oil or nuclear power? |
Excuse me. At www.justice-publications.com/GRAVITY.pdf there is the
description of a novel method of propelling ships and of generating
vast quantities of electrical power ad infinitum, both without
combustion, without chemical reaction and without pollution.
Apparently it was published by the Patent Office on August 18th.
It says that the method is available for anybody to use and is
extremely low technology. It certainly looks ridiculously simple and
apparently it produces about 500% p.a. on outlay. But the inventor
stipulates that it must be undertaken without the assistance of
middlemen or outside funding, which he says otherwise would put it and
its consumers into the financiers' hands yet again, as with oil and
everything else we use. Which I suppose is true.
The article suggests that within five or ten years it will make oil
redundant except as a lubricant, which will take the wind out of some
folks' sails, won't it, and should make a refreshing change all around
the planet.
.
|
|
| User: "Nog" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? |
11 Oct 2005 08:04:37 AM |
|
|
<acbiggs@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ml0gk19ksshiu3n6jddbvce8p72fa9qhc5@4ax.com...
Excuse me. At www.justice-publications.com/GRAVITY.pdf there is the
description of a novel method of propelling ships and of generating
vast quantities of electrical power ad infinitum, both without
combustion, without chemical reaction and without pollution.
Apparently it was published by the Patent Office on August 18th.
It says that the method is available for anybody to use and is
extremely low technology. It certainly looks ridiculously simple and
apparently it produces about 500% p.a. on outlay. But the inventor
stipulates that it must be undertaken without the assistance of
middlemen or outside funding, which he says otherwise would put it and
its consumers into the financiers' hands yet again, as with oil and
everything else we use. Which I suppose is true.
The article suggests that within five or ten years it will make oil
redundant except as a lubricant, which will take the wind out of some
folks' sails, won't it, and should make a refreshing change all around
the planet.
I need lots of nuclear power. It's much cleaner and environmentally
friendly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Howe" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? |
11 Oct 2005 10:15:31 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:04:37 -0400, "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
<acbiggs@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ml0gk19ksshiu3n6jddbvce8p72fa9qhc5@4ax.com...
Excuse me. At www.justice-publications.com/GRAVITY.pdf there is the
description of a novel method of propelling ships and of generating
vast quantities of electrical power ad infinitum, both without
combustion, without chemical reaction and without pollution.
Apparently it was published by the Patent Office on August 18th.
It says that the method is available for anybody to use and is
extremely low technology. It certainly looks ridiculously simple and
apparently it produces about 500% p.a. on outlay. But the inventor
stipulates that it must be undertaken without the assistance of
middlemen or outside funding, which he says otherwise would put it and
its consumers into the financiers' hands yet again, as with oil and
everything else we use. Which I suppose is true.
The article suggests that within five or ten years it will make oil
redundant except as a lubricant, which will take the wind out of some
folks' sails, won't it, and should make a refreshing change all around
the planet.
I need lots of nuclear power. It's much cleaner and environmentally
friendly.
And each nuclear power station takes a hundred years to dismantle at a
cost of one and a half billion USD *on today's value*. Of course, if
GW can continue to manufacture enemies out of the thin air above NY
and WDC, then you still have a use for the depleted uranium by
shooting it at them and befouling their countries. But then that has a
way of coming home to roost, too, finally.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? |
12 Oct 2005 04:51:54 AM |
|
|
In article <milnk15772gu3asttu6b4boi24as5m4okl@4ax.com>,
Don Howe <dhowe@aol.com> wrote:
<snip>
And each nuclear power station takes a hundred years to dismantle
What are you talking about?
<snip obvious political red herring>
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "News" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? |
12 Oct 2005 07:37:30 AM |
|
|
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:diimbq$8qk_004@s1009.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <milnk15772gu3asttu6b4boi24as5m4okl@4ax.com>,
Don Howe <dhowe@aol.com> wrote:
<snip>
And each nuclear power station takes a hundred years to dismantle
What are you talking about?
The de-commissioning costs are horrendous.
.
|
|
|
| User: "daestrom" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? |
12 Oct 2005 03:32:21 PM |
|
|
"News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote in message
news:434d053b$0$4252$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:diimbq$8qk_004@s1009.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <milnk15772gu3asttu6b4boi24as5m4okl@4ax.com>,
Don Howe <dhowe@aol.com> wrote:
<snip>
And each nuclear power station takes a hundred years to dismantle
What are you talking about?
The de-commissioning costs are horrendous.
Tell that to the *several* utilities that have/are decommissioning them
(without any government funding). None of them have filled chapter 11 yet.
daestrom
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? |
13 Oct 2005 06:10:30 AM |
|
|
In article <434d053b$0$4252$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
"News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote:
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:diimbq$8qk_004@s1009.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <milnk15772gu3asttu6b4boi24as5m4okl@4ax.com>,
Don Howe <dhowe@aol.com> wrote:
<snip>
And each nuclear power station takes a hundred years to dismantle
What are you talking about?
The de-commissioning costs are horrendous.
That high cost doesn't bother the greenie-idiots. Their
strategy is to increase the cost of nuclear power so
that nobody will ever build a plant. They make it too
expensive on purpose. Think about that when you don't
have electricity 7x24x366. I
am asking about the _time_. It doesn't take 100 years
to bulldoze a structure.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "News" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? |
13 Oct 2005 12:56:49 PM |
|
|
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:dilfb6$8qk_002@s1226.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
The de-commissioning costs are horrendous.
That high cost doesn't bother the greenie-idiots. Their
strategy is to increase the cost of nuclear power so
that nobody will ever build a plant.
That is great idea. There is no need for them in the frst place if proper
energy strategies are in place.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arnold Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? |
13 Oct 2005 03:39:02 PM |
|
|
"News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote in message
news:434ea356$0$35652$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:dilfb6$8qk_002@s1226.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
The de-commissioning costs are horrendous.
That high cost doesn't bother the greenie-idiots. Their
strategy is to increase the cost of nuclear power so
that nobody will ever build a plant.
That is great idea. There is no need for them in the frst place if proper
energy strategies are in place.
That road block is being addressed at this time.
By a country ,wondering how much more greenie they can handle.
Until we get to the point of not being ,the tail dragging the dog.
There is no chance of a energy policy actually working.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hurricane Guy" |
|
| Title: So who needs oil or nuclear power? Not America! |
13 Oct 2005 03:53:32 PM |
|
|
Nukes, though seemingly clean are far from clean. Because of
their concentration of energy not only provide a target but as you know
when a mistake is made, and mistakes are inevitable, the nuke will
contaminate a large area when it does go.
Small co-gens are a much better choice because they can be operated by
private entities such as farmers and local municipalities,
universities, indistries and so on. They are much safer, provide a
better support for the grid, don't become so critical or reliant as a
Nuke.
Nukes have a tremedous amount of politics. It becomes another Cartel
just like the Oil and Auto Cartel. Soon there is more expenditure
supporting the regulatory commission than there is in producing the
power. It grows into a giant fungus like the IRS and SSA , NASA and all
the agencies that take on a life of their own and can no longer can be
controlled. Everyones brother-in-law has a life time position. Jobs are
created to sharpen a pencil.
The answer?
KISS: Keep It Simple and Safe
Keep it where the people can operate and manage their own power for
themselves.
Closing the borders and confronting the population explosion is a far
more worthy task than building a Cartel to supply them with energy.
Make a requirement: to come to this country you will need to BYOB
"Bring Your Own Battery" and water. When they run out, Bye Bye! your
vacation is over. We cannot keep supporting the whole world who refuses
to keep their pants zipped up.
We have no Energy Crisis, what we do have is a Population Crisis.
The Cause: Our Population Crisis was brought on by citizen apathy and
greed and
supporting a very bad and failed Leadership Crisis
Us "Babyboomers" and previous generations have failed miserably for our
children and grandchildren who we are passing this world on to. We
certainly have nothing to be proud of and have been horrible examples
for our young.
We need to think for ourselves and quit listening to our failed
leadership tell us what they want to do. We need to listen more to our
young people and support their wishes, it's their world not ours. If
it's green, it's probably good. If it's brown it's probably more of our
leaderships bull *****!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vaughn" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? Not America! |
15 Oct 2005 01:05:22 PM |
|
|
"Hurricane Guy" <bdt5@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1129236812.555158.322370@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Nukes, though seemingly clean are far from clean.
Off-topic for aeh and excessively cross-posted.
Vaughn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? Not America! |
13 Oct 2005 05:04:19 PM |
|
|
"Hurricane Guy" <bdt5@cox.net> wrote in message news:1129236812.555158.322370@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Nukes, though seemingly clean are far from clean. Because of
their concentration of energy not only provide a target but as you know
when a mistake is made, and mistakes are inevitable, the nuke will
contaminate a large area when it does go.
Small co-gens are a much better choice because they can be operated by
private entities such as farmers and local municipalities,
universities, indistries and so on. They are much safer, provide a
better support for the grid, don't become so critical or reliant as a
Nuke.
Nukes have a tremedous amount of politics. It becomes another Cartel
just like the Oil and Auto Cartel. Soon there is more expenditure
supporting the regulatory commission than there is in producing the
power. It grows into a giant fungus like the IRS and SSA , NASA and all
the agencies that take on a life of their own and can no longer can be
controlled. Everyones brother-in-law has a life time position. Jobs are
created to sharpen a pencil.
The answer?
KISS: Keep It Simple and Safe
Keep it where the people can operate and manage their own power for
themselves.
Closing the borders and confronting the population explosion is a far
more worthy task than building a Cartel to supply them with energy.
Make a requirement: to come to this country you will need to BYOB
"Bring Your Own Battery" and water. When they run out, Bye Bye! your
vacation is over. We cannot keep supporting the whole world who refuses
to keep their pants zipped up.
We have no Energy Crisis, what we do have is a Population Crisis.
Indeed, the only problem the planet has, is a Population Problem.
Solve that one and every problem we can imagine is solved as well.
But don't put too much energy in solving it. Population Problems
tend to solve themselves. The more people we have, the greater the
probablility that someone solves the problem by merely Severely
Fucking Up.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hurricane Guy" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? Not America! |
13 Oct 2005 05:17:36 PM |
|
|
Amen to that. Man cannot destroy the Earth nor can he exhaust the
Energy, He can only ***** in his own nest! And we are doing a good job
of that!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mogga" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? Not America! |
14 Oct 2005 05:42:21 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 22:04:19 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
The answer?
KISS: Keep It Simple and Safe
Keep it where the people can operate and manage their own power for
themselves.
Closing the borders and confronting the population explosion is a far
more worthy task than building a Cartel to supply them with energy.
Make a requirement: to come to this country you will need to BYOB
"Bring Your Own Battery" and water. When they run out, Bye Bye! your
vacation is over. We cannot keep supporting the whole world who refuses
to keep their pants zipped up.
We have no Energy Crisis, what we do have is a Population Crisis.
Indeed, the only problem the planet has, is a Population Problem.
Solve that one and every problem we can imagine is solved as well.
But don't put too much energy in solving it. Population Problems
tend to solve themselves. The more people we have, the greater the
probablility that someone solves the problem by merely Severely
Fucking Up.
Hmm bird flu, hurricanes, heat waves, extreme weather, earthqakes -
the plent is trying to shake us off its back.
This site
http://satellite.ehabich.info/
shows pictures of earth from space - showing the clouds,earthquakes
etc it is one of my favourite sites to go and look at for a quick look
at what earthquakes and volcanoes are happening.
--
Promotional codes, discounts, money off
http://www.promotionalcode.co.uk/
http://www.moneyoffvouchers.co.uk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? Not America! |
14 Oct 2005 10:05:55 AM |
|
|
"mogga" <di@NOSPAMPLEASEmogga.com> wrote in message
news:bo2vk1dg66fc5fe9584uorafg33pkftolk@4ax.com...
| Hmm bird flu, hurricanes, heat waves, extreme weather, earthqakes -
| the plent is trying to shake us off its back.
What's a plent?
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? Not America! |
14 Oct 2005 05:47:43 AM |
|
|
Is a metacivilization/planetary intelligence too big a price to pay for
world unity????????
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? |
14 Oct 2005 06:11:49 AM |
|
|
In article <434ea356$0$35652$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
"News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote:
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:dilfb6$8qk_002@s1226.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
The de-commissioning costs are horrendous.
That high cost doesn't bother the greenie-idiots. Their
strategy is to increase the cost of nuclear power so
that nobody will ever build a plant.
That is great idea.
It's been going on for decades.
.. There is no need for them in the frst place if proper
energy strategies are in place.
You said "if". That is precisely the problem which you keep
ignoring. You are assuming that any if is possible. It is not.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "News" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? |
17 Oct 2005 04:39:37 PM |
|
|
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:dio3pl$8qk_011@s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <434ea356$0$35652$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
"News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote:
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:dilfb6$8qk_002@s1226.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
The de-commissioning costs are horrendous.
That high cost doesn't bother the greenie-idiots. Their
strategy is to increase the cost of nuclear power so
that nobody will ever build a plant.
That is great idea.
It's been going on for decades.
.. There is no need for them in the frst place if proper
energy strategies are in place.
You said "if". That is precisely the problem which you keep
ignoring. You are assuming that any if is possible. It is not.
Realistically there is no need for nuclear stations. What you are FUDing is
vested interest being in the way of implementing a perfectly sound strategy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arnold Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? |
17 Oct 2005 07:56:57 PM |
|
|
"News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote in message
news:43541a3f$0$41002$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:dio3pl$8qk_011@s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <434ea356$0$35652$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
"News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote:
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:dilfb6$8qk_002@s1226.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
The de-commissioning costs are horrendous.
That high cost doesn't bother the greenie-idiots. Their
strategy is to increase the cost of nuclear power so
that nobody will ever build a plant.
That is great idea.
It's been going on for decades.
.. There is no need for them in the frst place if proper
energy strategies are in place.
You said "if". That is precisely the problem which you keep
ignoring. You are assuming that any if is possible. It is not.
Realistically there is no need for nuclear stations. What you are FUDing
is
vested interest being in the way of implementing a perfectly sound
strategy.
There is no need for vested interest against nuke.
And the vested interest seems to be antiinfrastucture and industrialization.
Hiding under the name of glode economy.....
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? |
18 Oct 2005 05:15:29 AM |
|
|
In article <43541a3f$0$41002$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
"News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote:
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:dio3pl$8qk_011@s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <434ea356$0$35652$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
"News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote:
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:dilfb6$8qk_002@s1226.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
The de-commissioning costs are horrendous.
That high cost doesn't bother the greenie-idiots. Their
strategy is to increase the cost of nuclear power so
that nobody will ever build a plant.
That is great idea.
It's been going on for decades.
.. There is no need for them in the frst place if proper
energy strategies are in place.
You said "if". That is precisely the problem which you keep
ignoring. You are assuming that any if is possible. It is not.
Realistically there is no need for nuclear stations. What you are FUDing is
vested interest being in the way of implementing a perfectly sound strategy.
Realistically, there is no need of any power delivery. But
then you would be killing to eat your dinner and wearing
the skins of that you killed. If you don't, you and yours will
die, quickly.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? |
13 Oct 2005 09:11:47 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Oct 05 11:10:30 GMT, wrote:
In article <434d053b$0$4252$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
"News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:diimbq$8qk_004@s1009.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <milnk15772gu3asttu6b4boi24as5m4okl@4ax.com>,
Don Howe <dhowe@aol.com> wrote:
<snip>
And each nuclear power station takes a hundred years to dismantle
What are you talking about?
The de-commissioning costs are horrendous.
That high cost doesn't bother the greenie-idiots. Their
strategy is to increase the cost of nuclear power so
that nobody will ever build a plant. They make it too
expensive on purpose. Think about that when you don't
have electricity 7x24x366. I
am asking about the _time_. It doesn't take 100 years
to bulldoze a structure.
/BAH
You can't bulldoze the inner care or its shield. It's highly
radio-active. You have to wait for its various half-lives to elapse
before you can demolish it. That's the hundred years.
And the whole purpose of this thread is an proposed means of providing
electrical power cheaply and without pollution of any kind so that
such things as 'newcular powa' will not be necessary. Hadn't you been
paying attention? Go back to square one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? |
13 Oct 2005 04:03:10 PM |
|
|
In alt.energy.homepower wrote:
And each nuclear power station takes a hundred years to dismantle
What are you talking about?
The de-commissioning costs are horrendous.
That high cost doesn't bother the greenie-idiots. Their
strategy is to increase the cost of nuclear power so
that nobody will ever build a plant. They make it too
expensive on purpose. Think about that when you don't
have electricity 7x24x366. I
am asking about the _time_. It doesn't take 100 years
to bulldoze a structure.
/BAH
You can't bulldoze the inner care or its shield. It's highly
radio-active. You have to wait for its various half-lives to elapse
before you can demolish it. That's the hundred years.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051013/ap_on_re_us/rocky_flats;_ylt=AusCxcAKjhtlnnhWHgNbjw.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? |
14 Oct 2005 03:05:21 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:03:10 GMT, wrote:
In alt.energy.homepower wrote:
And each nuclear power station takes a hundred years to dismantle
What are you talking about?
The de-commissioning costs are horrendous.
That high cost doesn't bother the greenie-idiots. Their
strategy is to increase the cost of nuclear power so
that nobody will ever build a plant. They make it too
expensive on purpose. Think about that when you don't
have electricity 7x24x366. I
am asking about the _time_. It doesn't take 100 years
to bulldoze a structure.
/BAH
You can't bulldoze the inner care or its shield. It's highly
radio-active. You have to wait for its various half-lives to elapse
before you can demolish it. That's the hundred years.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051013/ap_on_re_us/rocky_flats;_ylt=AusCxcAKjhtlnnhWHgNbjw.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-
Sure. The dumb animals can be exposed to it. They can't vote or
complain. But note that some areas will sill be off-limits for much
longer - for humans, of course, the dumber beast can take their
chances with radioactivity, as there's no lobby for them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? |
13 Oct 2005 02:02:09 PM |
|
|
In article <dilr27$8qk_001@s2207.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, writes:
In article <ghqsk11p4goeaut9nt54j1o0dihk6la37o@4ax.com>,
abelshapiro@pinex.com wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 05 11:10:30 GMT, wrote:
In article <434d053b$0$4252$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
"News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:diimbq$8qk_004@s1009.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <milnk15772gu3asttu6b4boi24as5m4okl@4ax.com>,
Don Howe <dhowe@aol.com> wrote:
<snip>
And each nuclear power station takes a hundred years to dismantle
What are you talking about?
The de-commissioning costs are horrendous.
That high cost doesn't bother the greenie-idiots. Their
strategy is to increase the cost of nuclear power so
that nobody will ever build a plant. They make it too
expensive on purpose. Think about that when you don't
have electricity 7x24x366. I
am asking about the _time_. It doesn't take 100 years
to bulldoze a structure.
/BAH
You can't bulldoze the inner care or its shield.
That's the core. I've forgotten how these are set up.
ARen't the rods removable?
It's highly
radio-active. You have to wait for its various half-lives to elapse
before you can demolish it. That's the hundred years.
Assuming all this is true, the building becomes four acres (est.)
of land that is occupied by an empty building.
And why does it cost so much? Do they pay lots of people watch
paint dry?
And the whole purpose of this thread is an proposed means of providing
electrical power cheaply and without pollution of any kind so that
such things as 'newcular powa' will not be necessary.
And I was always accused of believing in virgins, fairy tales,
and inside straights.
:-)))
Hadn't you been
paying attention? Go back to square one.
I have been paying attention. Power isn't free and will never
be free. Don't these people ever take high school chemistry?
Or cook? There is nothing that doesn't leave leftovers.
Exactly. But what you see here is the mindset of the "Childish
generation" (which constitutes a significant fraction of current
western population), "I want everything and I want it now and I want
it free of charge and I accept no tradeoffs". And, yes, it is the
result of never having to do things yourself.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? |
14 Oct 2005 06:31:34 AM |
|
|
In article <Ray3f.17$25.1676@news.uchicago.edu>,
wrote:
In article <dilr27$8qk_001@s2207.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
writes:
In article <ghqsk11p4goeaut9nt54j1o0dihk6la37o@4ax.com>,
abelshapiro@pinex.com wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 05 11:10:30 GMT, wrote:
In article <434d053b$0$4252$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
"News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:diimbq$8qk_004@s1009.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <milnk15772gu3asttu6b4boi24as5m4okl@4ax.com>,
Don Howe <dhowe@aol.com> wrote:
<snip>
And each nuclear power station takes a hundred years to dismantle
What are you talking about?
The de-commissioning costs are horrendous.
That high cost doesn't bother the greenie-idiots. Their
strategy is to increase the cost of nuclear power so
that nobody will ever build a plant. They make it too
expensive on purpose. Think about that when you don't
have electricity 7x24x366. I
am asking about the _time_. It doesn't take 100 years
to bulldoze a structure.
/BAH
You can't bulldoze the inner care or its shield.
That's the core. I've forgotten how these are set up.
ARen't the rods removable?
It's highly
radio-active. You have to wait for its various half-lives to elapse
before you can demolish it. That's the hundred years.
Assuming all this is true, the building becomes four acres (est.)
of land that is occupied by an empty building.
And why does it cost so much? Do they pay lots of people watch
paint dry?
And the whole purpose of this thread is an proposed means of providing
electrical power cheaply and without pollution of any kind so that
such things as 'newcular powa' will not be necessary.
And I was always accused of believing in virgins, fairy tales,
and inside straights.
:-)))
Hadn't you been
paying attention? Go back to square one.
I have been paying attention. Power isn't free and will never
be free. Don't these people ever take high school chemistry?
Or cook? There is nothing that doesn't leave leftovers.
Exactly. But what you see here is the mindset of the "Childish
generation" (which constitutes a significant fraction of current
western population), "I want everything and I want it now and I want
it free of charge and I accept no tradeoffs". And, yes, it is the
result of never having to do things yourself.
Yes. I'm resigned to the fact that this is my next mess
prevention project.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? |
14 Oct 2005 12:01:37 PM |
|
|
In article <dio4um$8qk_003@s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, writes:
In article <Ray3f.17$25.1676@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <dilr27$8qk_001@s2207.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
writes:
In article <ghqsk11p4goeaut9nt54j1o0dihk6la37o@4ax.com>,
abelshapiro@pinex.com wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 05 11:10:30 GMT, wrote:
In article <434d053b$0$4252$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
"News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:diimbq$8qk_004@s1009.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <milnk15772gu3asttu6b4boi24as5m4okl@4ax.com>,
Don Howe <dhowe@aol.com> wrote:
<snip>
And each nuclear power station takes a hundred years to dismantle
What are you talking about?
The de-commissioning costs are horrendous.
That high cost doesn't bother the greenie-idiots. Their
strategy is to increase the cost of nuclear power so
that nobody will ever build a plant. They make it too
expensive on purpose. Think about that when you don't
have electricity 7x24x366. I
am asking about the _time_. It doesn't take 100 years
to bulldoze a structure.
/BAH
You can't bulldoze the inner care or its shield.
That's the core. I've forgotten how these are set up.
ARen't the rods removable?
It's highly
radio-active. You have to wait for its various half-lives to elapse
before you can demolish it. That's the hundred years.
Assuming all this is true, the building becomes four acres (est.)
of land that is occupied by an empty building.
And why does it cost so much? Do they pay lots of people watch
paint dry?
And the whole purpose of this thread is an proposed means of providing
electrical power cheaply and without pollution of any kind so that
such things as 'newcular powa' will not be necessary.
And I was always accused of believing in virgins, fairy tales,
and inside straights.
:-)))
Hadn't you been
paying attention? Go back to square one.
I have been paying attention. Power isn't free and will never
be free. Don't these people ever take high school chemistry?
Or cook? There is nothing that doesn't leave leftovers.
Exactly. But what you see here is the mindset of the "Childish
generation" (which constitutes a significant fraction of current
western population), "I want everything and I want it now and I want
it free of charge and I accept no tradeoffs". And, yes, it is the
result of never having to do things yourself.
Yes. I'm resigned to the fact that this is my next mess
prevention project.
Rather "mess cleanup". It is getting kinda late for prevention.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? |
15 Oct 2005 06:17:57 AM |
|
|
In article <RvR3f.32$25.2646@news.uchicago.edu>,
wrote:
In article <dio4um$8qk_003@s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
<snip>
I have been paying attention. Power isn't free and will never
be free. Don't these people ever take high school chemistry?
Or cook? There is nothing that doesn't leave leftovers.
Exactly. But what you see here is the mindset of the "Childish
generation" (which constitutes a significant fraction of current
western population), "I want everything and I want it now and I want
it free of charge and I accept no tradeoffs". And, yes, it is the
result of never having to do things yourself.
Yes. I'm resigned to the fact that this is my next mess
prevention project.
Rather "mess cleanup". It is getting kinda late for prevention.
It's a combination. I am thinking of the bigger mess if no
prevention is done. I could clean and clean and clean until
my bones are dry, but will accomplish nothing if I don't also
address the people and circumstances that make the mess I'm
cleaning up. It was my hard and fast rule at work to never
do the same work twice. So the design of cleaning up also
had a primary goal to also prevent more of the same mess.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? |
15 Oct 2005 01:50:06 PM |
|
|
In article <diqoh5$8ss_002@s1256.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, writes:
In article <RvR3f.32$25.2646@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <dio4um$8qk_003@s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
writes:
<snip>
I have been paying attention. Power isn't free and will never
be free. Don't these people ever take high school chemistry?
Or cook? There is nothing that doesn't leave leftovers.
Exactly. But what you see here is the mindset of the "Childish
generation" (which constitutes a significant fraction of current
western population), "I want everything and I want it now and I want
it free of charge and I accept no tradeoffs". And, yes, it is the
result of never having to do things yourself.
Yes. I'm resigned to the fact that this is my next mess
prevention project.
Rather "mess cleanup". It is getting kinda late for prevention.
It's a combination. I am thinking of the bigger mess if no
prevention is done. I could clean and clean and clean until
my bones are dry, but will accomplish nothing if I don't also
address the people and circumstances that make the mess I'm
cleaning up. It was my hard and fast rule at work to never
do the same work twice. So the design of cleaning up also
had a primary goal to also prevent more of the same mess.
Well, your problem here is that the mess is primarily a matter of
mindsets. "Cultural", if you wish. These are very difficult to
address.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arnold Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? |
15 Oct 2005 04:13:24 PM |
|
|
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:ybc4f.40$25.3377@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <diqoh5$8ss_002@s1256.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <RvR3f.32$25.2646@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <dio4um$8qk_003@s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
<snip>
I have been paying attention. Power isn't free and will never
be free. Don't these people ever take high school chemistry?
Or cook? There is nothing that doesn't leave leftovers.
Exactly. But what you see here is the mindset of the "Childish
generation" (which constitutes a significant fraction of current
western population), "I want everything and I want it now and I want
it free of charge and I accept no tradeoffs". And, yes, it is the
result of never having to do things yourself.
Yes. I'm resigned to the fact that this is my next mess
prevention project.
Rather "mess cleanup". It is getting kinda late for prevention.
It's a combination. I am thinking of the bigger mess if no
prevention is done. I could clean and clean and clean until
my bones are dry, but will accomplish nothing if I don't also
address the people and circumstances that make the mess I'm
cleaning up. It was my hard and fast rule at work to never
do the same work twice. So the design of cleaning up also
had a primary goal to also prevent more of the same mess.
Well, your problem here is that the mess is primarily a matter of
mindsets. "Cultural", if you wish. These are very difficult to
address.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Agreed with you on the last paragragh.
You are not supposed to think about all energy sources are a target.
So terrorists threat is supposed to be a new unheard thought.
Granted ,the Golden Triangle.....native area folks name for the petro base
in the Gulf of Mexico.Has shown some of the effects that you can have.
But in most cases, the anti nukes are also anti oil infrastructure(you need
LNG,refineries,and wells
scattered).So they play the same game off California,Alaska,Florida, and
everywhere in between.
Then make noises like someone else did that.
You try x-ray excited (like the Grumman plane with Hf) or particle beam
excited(like the Texas Aggie Boron fusion reactor).
transmutation research and prototypes.To develope a alternative to dumping
nuke waste.
And they are talking an Abomb in every garage.
Hell,wasn't a it liberal president ,that gave Red China multi deployment
warheads.While
supporting this antinuke US plant building and research.
There is talk of the radioactivity for a hundred years in tearing down old
plant.
But never think about the half life of the material mined or refined.
Without the "end of mankind" doomsayeer problems predicted.
We used stick of Cobalt and Radium in industrial xraying for decades.
How do they think think the stuff got there to the lead pot in the xray
lab.....or for that matter how I survived
without cancer and all the real or imagined ills caused by nuke exposure.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? |
15 Oct 2005 08:44:59 PM |
|
|
In article <1129410971_3103@spool6-east.superfeed.net>, "Arnold Walker" <arnoldwalker@consolidated.net> writes:
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:ybc4f.40$25.3377@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <diqoh5$8ss_002@s1256.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <RvR3f.32$25.2646@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <dio4um$8qk_003@s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
<snip>
I have been paying attention. Power isn't free and will never
be free. Don't these people ever take high school chemistry?
Or cook? There is nothing that doesn't leave leftovers.
Exactly. But what you see here is the mindset of the "Childish
generation" (which constitutes a significant fraction of current
western population), "I want everything and I want it now and I want
it free of charge and I accept no tradeoffs". And, yes, it is the
result of never having to do things yourself.
Yes. I'm resigned to the fact that this is my next mess
prevention project.
Rather "mess cleanup". It is getting kinda late for prevention.
It's a combination. I am thinking of the bigger mess if no
prevention is done. I could clean and clean and clean until
my bones are dry, but will accomplish nothing if I don't also
address the people and circumstances that make the mess I'm
cleaning up. It was my hard and fast rule at work to never
do the same work twice. So the design of cleaning up also
had a primary goal to also prevent more of the same mess.
Well, your problem here is that the mess is primarily a matter of
mindsets. "Cultural", if you wish. These are very difficult to
address.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Agreed with you on the last paragragh.
You are not supposed to think about all energy sources are a target.
So terrorists threat is supposed to be a new unheard thought.
Granted ,the Golden Triangle.....native area folks name for the petro base
in the Gulf of Mexico.Has shown some of the effects that you can have.
But in most cases, the anti nukes are also anti oil infrastructure(you need
LNG,refineries,and wells
scattered).So they play the same game off California,Alaska,Florida, and
everywhere in between.
Then make noises like someone else did that.
You try x-ray excited (like the Grumman plane with Hf) or particle beam
excited(like the Texas Aggie Boron fusion reactor).
transmutation research and prototypes.To develope a alternative to dumping
nuke waste.
And they are talking an Abomb in every garage.
Hell,wasn't a it liberal president ,that gave Red China multi deployment
warheads.While
supporting this antinuke US plant building and research.
There is talk of the radioactivity for a hundred years in tearing down old
plant.
But never think about the half life of the material mined or refined.
Without the "end of mankind" doomsayeer problems predicted.
We used stick of Cobalt and Radium in industrial xraying for decades.
How do they think think the stuff got there to the lead pot in the xray
lab.....or for that matter how I survived
without cancer and all the real or imagined ills caused by nuke exposure.
How indeed?:-) You can ask them but don't expect an intelligent
answer.
Keep in mind, though, that there are two different types of "antis".
The first type is what was termed above "childish". They never heard
about tradeoffs, cost-benefit analysis and the like, they just "wnat
it all, and want it cheap, and won't accept any downsides", and they
sincerely believe that just because they want it, they can and will
get it. The second (rarer) type are those who would want to give up
on all the amenities of modern life, rewind back all the industrial
revolution and return to the "idylic" times of the preindustrian,
agrarian society. Those are at tleas honest and consistent though
(IMO) have a very poor grasp of what life in preindustrial society
was.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Spence" |
|
| Title: Re: So who needs oil or nuclear power? |
17 Oct 2005 01:02:57 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Keep in mind, though, that there are two different types of "antis".
The first type is what was termed above "childish". They never heard
about tradeoffs, cost-benefit analysis and the like, they just "wnat
it all, and want it cheap, and won't accept any downsides", and they
sincerely believe that just because they want it, they can and will
get it. The second (rarer) type are those who would want to give up
on all the amenities of modern life, rewind back all the industrial
revolution and return to the "idylic" times of the preindustrian,
agrarian society. Those are at tleas honest and consistent though
(IMO) have a very poor grasp of what life in preindustrial society
was.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
You missed the third type. Those of us who live a fairly normal
lifestyle, but have reduced consumption through more efficient
appliances and wiser usage patterns (compact fluorescents instead of
incandescents, and shutting off lights when not in use, adding more
insulation, and getting rid of phantom loads. By reducing our energy
consumption by over 60%, and making the last 40% from renewable sources
like wind and PV, We've removed ourselves from the electric power grid,
and with biofueled vehicles, have removed ourselves from the fossil
transportation grid. With rain water harvesting and greywater recovery,
no aquifer water is being used, and only 12vdc solar powered pumps are
necessary to move the water around. with sun and wood heated water, our
homes stay warm in winter, with fewer emissions and load on civilization.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
