| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Lady Liberty" |
| Date: |
07 May 2007 11:39:20 PM |
| Object: |
How much gas would this save? |
With gas going up in price about 35% since January, this would make an
interesting research project.
We have a few ideas that could save significant amounts of gas each year
for the drivers in this country.
Some bright college types should pick up this ball and research it.
1.) Eliminate 4 way stop signs. How many 4 way stop signs are there in
this country? They waste gas. MOST of them could probably easily be
turned into 2 way stop signs and when added over the whole country,
might save people a huge amount of gas.
2.) Permit U turns, if done safely, except in the rare places where they
would be unsafe to permit. When I moved to the Denver area, I made a
safe U turn in a neighborhood back street, right in front of a cop, and
discovered that U turns are illegal in most of Colorado, when I got a
ticket for a harmless thing. That wastes a LOT of gas, as we sometimes
have to drive half a mile to find some place to turn around, or drive
around entire blocks, because U turns are illegal.
3.) Get rid of red arrows on lights and TRUST PEOPLE. How many times did
you have to sit burning gas at a red arrow, with absolutely no one
coming from the other direction and clear visibility? A red arrow is a
sign that the government doesn't trust you to make your own turns
safely. It would save lots of gas every year if most of them were
eliminated and turned into open green lights where you could turn if you
did it safely.
And while you're at it, how about educating some of these bad ( ignorant
) drivers? You know, the ones who sit behind the white line at an open
green light and won't turn, as if they think they're only allowed to
turn if there's a green arrow there, and the light turns red, then THEY
turn from behind the line, leaving YOU to suffer another wait because of
their stupidity. Have a public campaign to teach these people, who
obviously got their drivers licenses out of cracker jacks boxes, that
they're SUPPOSED to pull up into the intersection and turn when it's
open, or when the light turns red, and complete their turn, allowing a
few more cars through.
--
Please read about the true principles of liberty at:
http//planetarybillofrights.org/
.
|
|
| User: "studio" |
|
| Title: Re: How much gas would this save? |
08 May 2007 12:48:24 AM |
|
|
On May 8, 12:39 am, Lady Liberty
<LadyLibe...@NOSPAMPlanetaryBillOfRights.org> wrote:
They waste gas. MOST of them could probably easily be
4 way turned into 2 way stop signs...
2.) Permit U turns,...
3.) Get rid of red arrows on lights and TRUST PEOPLE.
...how about educating some of these bad ( ignorant drivers?
While you are right technically speaking,
a significant amount of gas would not be saved from any of these
ideas.
The meer fact that there are new drivers on the road everyday who
just
got their first drivers license by far outweighs all the ideas you
proposed.
All these methods of saving and producing new gas are just so much BS
politicians are using against the people for their own power of
control.
You want real solutions?
Electric.
Have a massive solar program put in place, and augment it with
additional nuclear
power generation to create electricity, then move to cheap abundant
electricity for
rechargeable batteries.
By massive solar program, I mean a program in sun shinning states on
government
owned land (the peoples land), with solar collectors covering hundreds
of square miles
that could be inputed into the electrical grid and supply most of the
US.
The other methods are just so much non-sense as to be completely
laughable.
You're not going to be growing your way out of gas prices.
The only reason it works in Brazil is because of sugar cane and
cutting down the
Amazon forest (a natural scrubber of CO2) to make room for the ever
more that is needed.
Sugar cane can not be grown successfully in the US on a large enough
scale.
And corn or beets require more steps in the refining process.
More steps = more energy used to make it
(and this is what we're trying to get away from right?)
In order to grow enough corn or beets you'd need twice the amount of
land
that is currently being used, and even then would not be enough for
year round generation
on the scale necessary...not to mention food prices rising, and the
inevitable government
subsidies that would arise and have indeed already arose.
Remember, there are 2-3 more million population in the US every year,
all wanting energy in the form of oil, because that's the only real
game in town for most.
George Bush =
zero new nuclear plants
zero new refineries - actually 1 less
zero new solar capacity
double gasoline prices...and rising.
New initatives from oil companies = zero
The only initatives they're likely to take is finding new ways to get
more oil.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Whyte-Settlar" |
|
| Title: Re: How much gas would this save? |
08 May 2007 10:43:26 AM |
|
|
"studio" <tlack@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178603304.604790.322770@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 12:39 am, Lady Liberty
<LadyLibe...@NOSPAMPlanetaryBillOfRights.org> wrote:
They waste gas. MOST of them could probably easily be
4 way turned into 2 way stop signs...
2.) Permit U turns,...
3.) Get rid of red arrows on lights and TRUST PEOPLE.
...how about educating some of these bad ( ignorant drivers?
While you are right technically speaking,
a significant amount of gas would not be saved from any of these
ideas.
The meer fact that there are new drivers on the road everyday who
just
got their first drivers license by far outweighs all the ideas you
proposed.
All these methods of saving and producing new gas are just so much BS
politicians are using against the people for their own power of
control.
You want real solutions?
Electric.
Have a massive solar program put in place, and augment it with
additional nuclear
power generation to create electricity, then move to cheap abundant
electricity for
rechargeable batteries.
By massive solar program, I mean a program in sun shinning states on
government
owned land (the peoples land), with solar collectors covering hundreds
of square miles
You don't need hundreds of square miles. Looks like solar concentrators are
the way to go rather than photovoltaic cells.
Europe is leaving the US behind in this trillion dollar global market
technology as Bush and his cronies dither about how to keep their oil mogul
buddies happy. This one in Spain is now fully operational - it's just an 11
meg prototype but a 300 meg set-up is due to supply the entire city of
Seville within a few years. It even looks good and has zero emissions and
very low running costs. Runs 24 hours too - which will be a poke in the eye
for the morons who *still* keep sagely informing me that solar plants stop
when the sun goes down.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2007/2007-03-30-02.asp
No need for expensive nuclear energy with it's so-far unsolved problem of
what to do with all the millions of tons and mounting of waste we currently
have 'stored'. That will have the nuclear industry moguls pissing their
pants too.
When you think of all the sunny empty deserts around California and all that
American ingenuity and money! - the US could have been a world leader if it
wasn't stuck with a last century government in the pocket of the energy
dinosaurs. Bush couldn't be more wrong - climate change 'cleantech'
solutions will be a huge economic driver creating millions of highly-skill
jobs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "studio" |
|
| Title: Re: How much gas would this save? |
09 May 2007 12:36:30 AM |
|
|
On May 8, 11:43 am, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawill...@westnet.com.au>
wrote:
You don't need hundreds of square miles. Looks like solar concentrators are
the way to go rather than photovoltaic cells.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2007/2007-03-30-02.asp
While I don't say no, the US would need thousands of those things at
the same output.
No need for expensive nuclear energy with it's so-far unsolved problem of
what to do with all the millions of tons and mounting of waste we currently
have 'stored'.
The universe is full of radioactive material, the storage of some of
it is not that
big of a deal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Whyte-Settlar" |
|
| Title: Re: How much gas would this save? |
09 May 2007 04:28:39 AM |
|
|
"studio" <tlack@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178688990.612491.162670@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 11:43 am, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawill...@westnet.com.au>
wrote:
You don't need hundreds of square miles. Looks like solar concentrators
are
the way to go rather than photovoltaic cells.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2007/2007-03-30-02.asp
While I don't say no, the US would need thousands of those things at
the same output.
That's just a small prototype at 11 megawatts. It's perfectly possible to
build a 500 megawatt station.
And so what if thousands are needed - build thousands.
No need for expensive nuclear energy with it's so-far unsolved problem of
what to do with all the millions of tons and mounting of waste we
currently
have 'stored'.
The universe is full of radioactive material,
So what. I'm talking about the piles of stored nuclear waste in France and
the US and various other countries on this little planet today.
the storage of some of
it is not that
big of a deal.
It is a huge deal - millions of tons of the stuff is building up in storage
and no-one yet has a ****ing clue what we are going to do with it - that's
WHY it is being stored.
If we can find some way of taking it out of storage and disposing of it then
I might be convinced that it's worth a nuclear meltdown every now and then
for carbon free fuel.
And yes - there will be nuclear disasters. If we have thousands of them
forever - presuming the uranium doesn't run out and fast breeder technology
becomes a global reality - then saying "we havn't had a disaster for over 20
years now" is like saying "I'm planning to live forever - so far so good".
But the point I'm making is we don't NEED nuclear - we already have more
power than we could ever possibly use - we just need to harness it.
The dirty-energy multi-nationals and their political lackies can go ****
themselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "studio" |
|
| Title: Re: How much gas would this save? |
09 May 2007 06:36:48 PM |
|
|
On May 9, 5:28 am, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawill...@westnet.com.au>
wrote:
It is a huge deal - millions of tons of the stuff is building up in storage
and no-one yet has a ****ing clue what we are going to do with it - that's
WHY it is being stored.
Not completely true and you know it.
Some is being recycled, and the storage area in Nevada is a perfectly
good
solution for the next 10,000 years.
And yes - there will be nuclear disasters.
There's already been a non-nuclear disaster that have caused 10's of
thousands of deaths.
Since it's inception, the US nuclear power have not caused any major
disruptions and have advanced human understanding of physics.
Nuclear power is extremely safe at this point.
I am for lots more solar and some nuclear power, but the damn oil and
gas thing just
causes a real mess.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Whyte-Settlar" |
|
| Title: Re: How much gas would this save? |
10 May 2007 05:35:57 AM |
|
|
"studio" <tlack@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178753807.964644.101480@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 9, 5:28 am, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawill...@westnet.com.au>
wrote:
It is a huge deal - millions of tons of the stuff is building up in
storage
and no-one yet has a ****ing clue what we are going to do with it -
that's
WHY it is being stored.
Not completely true and you know it.
Some is being recycled, and the storage area in Nevada is a perfectly
good
solution for the next 10,000 years.
Yeah? OK - then what?
And who is going to look after it for '10,000 years' and who is going to pay
their wages for 10,000 years? Makes the energy a bit expensive when the
wages bills run for millenia. But hey - who gives a **** - that's for our
kids to worry about eh?
And don't forget it's growing exponentially - or it will if any more white
elephant power stations are built.
And yes - there will be nuclear disasters.
There's already been a non-nuclear disaster that have caused 10's of
thousands of deaths.
Wasn't solar though was it?
Since it's inception, the US nuclear power have not caused any major
disruptions and have advanced human understanding of physics.
Nuclear power is extremely safe at this point.
"I'm planning on living forever - so far so good"
I am for lots more solar and some nuclear power,
Why nuclear when it isn't needed, is extremely polluting, totally uneconomic
and it is only a matter of time before nuclear disasters would become
commonplace if thousands were built.
If only half of the money that has been spent on nuclear had gone into solar
and other forms of energy research we would be halfway there by now.
Nuclear is motivated by politics and individual greed - it has no practical
basis in terms of energy or long-term economics.
A W-S
but the damn oil and
gas thing just
causes a real mess.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred G. Mackey" |
|
| Title: Re: How much gas would this save? |
11 May 2007 12:40:41 AM |
|
|
Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
"studio" <tlack@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178753807.964644.101480@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 9, 5:28 am, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawill...@westnet.com.au>
wrote:
It is a huge deal - millions of tons of the stuff is building up in
storage
and no-one yet has a ****ing clue what we are going to do with it -
that's
WHY it is being stored.
Not completely true and you know it.
Some is being recycled, and the storage area in Nevada is a perfectly
good
solution for the next 10,000 years.
Yeah? OK - then what?
You mean what happens 10,000 years from now? I expect that technology
will have advanced a great deal and the people will look back on us as
being very primitive.
But we have 10,000 years to figure it out. I think that's plenty of time.
And who is going to look after it for '10,000 years' and who is going to pay
their wages for 10,000 years?
Obviously not you - life will go on and people will pay taxes and gov't
will continue to operate.
Makes the energy a bit expensive when the
wages bills run for millenia. But hey - who gives a **** - that's for our
kids to worry about eh?
No, it's for several thousand generations after your kids are born to
worry about. THey'll get by
And don't forget it's growing exponentially - or it will if any more white
elephant power stations are built.
Is it growing exponentially?
You do realize what that means, don't you? At any rate, the volume of
waste is small and there is plenty of room to store it.
And yes - there will be nuclear disasters.
There's already been a non-nuclear disaster that have caused 10's of
thousands of deaths.
Wasn't solar though was it?
If solar power could solve all of our energy problems, I'd be 110% for
it. The fact is, that it's a panacea and even the more extreme
enviro-nuts are beginning to realize nukes are cleaner and more
effective than anything else available.
Since it's inception, the US nuclear power have not caused any major
disruptions and have advanced human understanding of physics.
Nuclear power is extremely safe at this point.
"I'm planning on living forever - so far so good"
Hmmm - you seem to be insane
I am for lots more solar and some nuclear power,
Why nuclear when it isn't needed, is extremely polluting,
Not at all. That's a complete falsehood. Petroleum is extremely
polluting. Solar is expensive and unreliable and quite polluting. You
don't think those solar cells just magically appear, do you?
totally uneconomic
It is very economic
and it is only a matter of time before nuclear disasters would become
commonplace if thousands were built.
They would be less commonplace than mine and oil refinery disasters.
If only half of the money that has been spent on nuclear had gone into solar
and other forms of energy research we would be halfway there by now.
So you say - reality suggests you are wrong.
Nuclear is motivated by politics and individual greed
Actually, anti-nukes are motivated by politics and individual greed.
You are a prime example.
- it has no practical
basis in terms of energy or long-term economics.
Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
A W-S
but the damn oil and
gas thing just
causes a real mess.
And yet you'd sooner maintain the status quo than embrace clean
efficient energy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Whyte-Settlar" |
|
| Title: Re: How much gas would this save? |
11 May 2007 09:13:19 AM |
|
|
"Fred G. Mackey" <do@not.spam> wrote in message
news:OKCdnbalx8nqnNnbnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@comcast.com...
Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
"studio" <tlack@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178753807.964644.101480@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 9, 5:28 am, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawill...@westnet.com.au>
wrote:
It is a huge deal - millions of tons of the stuff is building up in
storage
and no-one yet has a ****ing clue what we are going to do with it -
that's
WHY it is being stored.
Not completely true and you know it.
Some is being recycled, and the storage area in Nevada is a perfectly
good
solution for the next 10,000 years.
Yeah? OK - then what?
You mean what happens 10,000 years from now? I expect that technology
will have advanced a great deal and the people will look back on us as
being very primitive.
Nice that you are so naively optimistic. The way things are looking it
deosn't look promising that homo-sapiens will even have a future let alone
be advanced enough to have figured out a way of disposing of 10,000 years
worth of nuclear waste.
But we have 10,000 years to figure it out. I think that's plenty of time.
Yeah -that's exactly the problem - we abdicate responsibiity and pass on the
problem to the next generation on the basis of '***** it, i'ts not my
problem - let the next load of suckers sort it all out". I bet you throw
your rubbish away in the street too.
And who is going to look after it for '10,000 years' and who is going to
pay their wages for 10,000 years?
Obviously not you - life will go on and people will pay taxes and gov't
will continue to operate.
Really? Got any evidence for that? Same idea though - ***** it - let the
next generation sort out my mess. Very responsible attitude I'm sure.
Makes the energy a bit expensive when the wages bills run for millenia.
But hey - who gives a **** - that's for our kids to worry about eh?
No, it's for several thousand generations after your kids are born to
worry about. THey'll get by
Really? How do you know this. Do you think they'll thank you for your
foresight. I guess you think the millions of mines you guys left in Cambodia
will be sorted out and the people will 'get by' with only one leg eh?
And don't forget it's growing exponentially - or it will if any more
white elephant power stations are built.
Is it growing exponentially?
Of course it is. Or at least it certainly will grow exponentially as the
number of nuclear white elephants increase. Why are yo so keen to make a
tiny rich elite even richer based onthe lie of nuclear energy? Are you
really so stupid that you can't understand the motivation behind it?
You do realize what that means, don't you?
Yes - cerainly do know what that means - clearly you don't.
At any rate, the volume of
waste is small
Really? Actually the volume of waste is absolutly enormous and increasing
every year. only fools believe the nuclear industry spokesmen
and there is plenty of room to store it.
Then what? All this talk about 'storing it' for 80,000 years or more (and
how ridicuous is that notion) but no-one has come up with a way of disposing
of it safely.
If solar power could solve all of our energy problems, I'd be 110% for it.
Good - because it can. And eventually it will - once all the blinkered
morons realise the answer has been right over our heads for 4 billion years.
The fact is, that it's a panacea and even the more extreme
enviro-nuts are beginning to realize nukes are cleaner and more effective
than anything else available.
Total rubbish. People like Lovelock have said a few things in favour I
suppose - but he's wrong.
Funny that they are insane 'eco-nuts' until they suppor tnuclear as a
possibility and then they are gurus all of a sudden. Well to me they are
still eco-nuts.
Since it's inception, the US nuclear power have not caused any major
disruptions and have advanced human understanding of physics.
Nuclear power is extremely safe at this point.
"I'm planning on living forever - so far so good"
Hmmm - you seem to be insane
Exactly. I was quoting that as an example of how insane your line of
thinking is. Ie. "Since it's inception the US nuclear power have no caused
any disruptions etc.." Do you still fail to understand? Are you seriously
suggesting that this can go on forever and that 'storing' the huge
quantities of waste is a solution?
I am for lots more solar and some nuclear power,
Why nuclear when it isn't needed, is extremely polluting,
Not at all. That's a complete falsehood.
How blind can you *possibly* get?! We have just been discussing the huge, as
yet intractable problem, of disposing of millions of tons of nuclear waste
and you come out with an areshole statement like that? Talk about see no
evil. Such hypocrisy would be hilarious if it wsn't so serious.
Petroleum is extremely
polluting.
Of course.
Solar is expensive and unreliable and quite polluting. You
don't think those solar cells just magically appear, do you?
Who's talking about photo-voltaic cells? That's so last century. Where have
you been?
Solar is extremely cheap and reliable and does not pollute.
Did you even look at the link to the latest Spanish solar-powered steam
turbine generators I posted?
No - thought not - rathe rbelive last centuries tired old hype about nuclear
eh? Easier than new thinking I guess.
totally uneconomic
It is very economic
and it is only a matter of time before nuclear disasters would become
commonplace if thousands were built.
They would be less commonplace than mine and oil refinery disasters.
Possibly - but that's a given. I'm obviously totally against new oil powered
generators and also coal unless the 'clean-coal' technology becomes more
than a pipe dream as it is at this moment.
If only half of the money that has been spent on nuclear had gone into
solar and other forms of energy research we would be halfway there by
now.
So you say - reality suggests you are wrong.
No - reality suggest I am absolutely correct. Check it out instead of
spouting your outdated 5 year old *****.
Nuclear is motivated by politics and individual greed
Actually, anti-nukes are motivated by politics and individual greed. You
are a prime example.
Oh good grief! - and you were claiming that *I'm* insane?!
I'm far too old and far too rich for it to matter a toss to me personally.
But I'm an ex environmental management consultant and my 30 years of
experience in related fields has shown me a few things about the energy biz
that you can't even begin to imagine.
- it has no practical basis in terms of energy or long-term economics.
Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
A W-S
but the damn oil and
gas thing just
causes a real mess.
And yet you'd sooner maintain the status quo than embrace clean efficient
energy.
Watch your attributions - I didn't write that.
And I would definitely embrace clean efficient energy - nuclear is extremely
polluting and totally inefficient - wake up sonny - it's YOUR future - I've
had most of my life already.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred G. Mackey" |
|
| Title: Re: How much gas would this save? |
11 May 2007 08:55:36 PM |
|
|
Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
"Fred G. Mackey" <do@not.spam> wrote in message
news:OKCdnbalx8nqnNnbnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@comcast.com...
Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
"studio" <tlack@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178753807.964644.101480@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 9, 5:28 am, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawill...@westnet.com.au>
wrote:
It is a huge deal - millions of tons of the stuff is building up in
storage
and no-one yet has a ****ing clue what we are going to do with it -
that's
WHY it is being stored.
Not completely true and you know it.
Some is being recycled, and the storage area in Nevada is a perfectly
good
solution for the next 10,000 years.
Yeah? OK - then what?
You mean what happens 10,000 years from now? I expect that technology
will have advanced a great deal and the people will look back on us as
being very primitive.
Nice that you are so naively optimistic.
It's naive or even optimistic to think that technology will be far more
advanced in 10,000 years than it is now?
Look back over the past 100 years and see how far we've advanced. You
think we're near the pinnacle of our success in technological advances?
The way things are looking it
deosn't look promising that homo-sapiens will even have a future
What do you imagine is going to wipe out our species? AIDS? Nuclear
war? Those are serious things, but they're not going to wipe out homo
sapiens.
Sorry, Chicken Little - the sky is NOT falling.
let alone
be advanced enough to have figured out a way of disposing of 10,000 years
worth of nuclear waste.
We'll deal with it - not to worry.
But we have 10,000 years to figure it out. I think that's plenty of time.
Yeah -that's exactly the problem - we abdicate responsibiity and pass on the
problem to the next generation on the basis of '***** it, i'ts not my
problem -
Much the same way our ancestors hunted certain species to extinction and
polluted our air with steam engines and steel factories without modern
pollution controls. Funny - we're still thriving.
let the next load of suckers sort it all out". I bet you throw
your rubbish away in the street too.
Not at all. I'm a very hard-core anti-litterer. I like to hike and if
I see trash on the trail, I pick it up - if for no other reason than the
next time I'm there I won't have to see it again. I also put social
pressure on people I see littering. I've gotten people to pick up trash
they just threw out their window before, while I bet you sheepishly let
them do it.
And who is going to look after it for '10,000 years' and who is going to
pay their wages for 10,000 years?
Obviously not you - life will go on and people will pay taxes and gov't
will continue to operate.
Really? Got any evidence for that?
Just all of recorded history. Got any evidence that society is going to
suddenly - or even gradually cease to function?
Same idea though - ***** it - let the
next generation sort out my mess. Very responsible attitude I'm sure.
And what should we do in the meantime? Destroy our economy so that our
children die of starvation by the millions and there is no one left to
worry about?
Makes the energy a bit expensive when the wages bills run for millenia.
But hey - who gives a **** - that's for our kids to worry about eh?
No, it's for several thousand generations after your kids are born to
worry about. THey'll get by
Really?
Yes. Got any evidence that they won't?
How do you know this. Do you think they'll thank you for your
foresight. I guess you think the millions of mines you guys left in Cambodia
will be sorted out and the people will 'get by' with only one leg eh?
Life sometimes deals people a bad hand. This has NOTHING to do with
landmines in Cambodia - or the Khmer Rouge. You're trying to change the
subject.
And don't forget it's growing exponentially - or it will if any more
white elephant power stations are built.
Is it growing exponentially?
Of course it is. Or at least it certainly will grow exponentially
Make up your mind - that is if you have one.
as the
number of nuclear white elephants increase. Why are yo so keen to make a
tiny rich elite even richer based onthe lie of nuclear energy?
I'm not - why are you so keen on it?
Are you
really so stupid that you can't understand the motivation behind it?
Clean air, cheap energy - what's the problem with that?
You do realize what that means, don't you?
Yes - cerainly do know what that means - clearly you don't.
At any rate, the volume of
waste is small
Really?
Yes
Actually the volume of waste is absolutly enormous and increasing
every year.
Compared to what? THe waste from petroleum? The waste from coal? The
waste from nickel mined to make batteries to power electric cars?
only fools believe the nuclear industry spokesmen
Only fools think that everything is just a huge conspiracy.
and there is plenty of room to store it.
Then what? All this talk about 'storing it' for 80,000 years or more
Oh, now we're up to 80,000 years?
(and
how ridicuous is that notion) but no-one has come up with a way of disposing
of it safely.
If solar power could solve all of our energy problems, I'd be 110% for it.
Good - because it can. And eventually it will - once all the blinkered
morons realise the answer has been right over our heads for 4 billion years.
The fact is, that it's a panacea and even the more extreme
enviro-nuts are beginning to realize nukes are cleaner and more effective
than anything else available.
Total rubbish. People like Lovelock have said a few things in favour I
suppose - but he's wrong.
Funny that they are insane 'eco-nuts' until they suppor tnuclear as a
possibility and then they are gurus all of a sudden. Well to me they are
still eco-nuts.
I never called them "gurus". They're just beginning to accept reality.
Since it's inception, the US nuclear power have not caused any major
disruptions and have advanced human understanding of physics.
Nuclear power is extremely safe at this point.
"I'm planning on living forever - so far so good"
Hmmm - you seem to be insane
Exactly.
Can't argue with that.
I was quoting that as an example of how insane your line of
thinking is. Ie. "Since it's inception the US nuclear power have no caused
any disruptions etc.."
Those weren't my words, but can you point to any "disruptions"?
Do you still fail to understand? Are you seriously
suggesting that this can go on forever and that 'storing' the huge
quantities of waste is a solution?
Of course - do you seriously think we can cover the earth in solar cells?
I am for lots more solar and some nuclear power,
Why nuclear when it isn't needed, is extremely polluting,
Not at all. That's a complete falsehood.
How blind can you *possibly* get?! We have just been discussing the huge, as
yet intractable problem,
No, you've been making those claims - without any evidence.
of disposing of millions of tons of nuclear waste
How much nuclear waste? As long as you continue to make up numbers,
you're not worth taking seriously.
and you come out with an areshole statement like that?
Speaking the truth is NOT an "areshole [sic] statement"
Talk about see no
evil. Such hypocrisy would be hilarious if it wsn't so serious.
Petroleum is extremely
polluting.
Of course.
Solar is expensive and unreliable and quite polluting. You
don't think those solar cells just magically appear, do you?
Who's talking about photo-voltaic cells? That's so last century. Where have
you been?
Where have you been?
Solar is extremely cheap and reliable and does not pollute.
It's neither cheap nor reliable and the manufacture of solar cells does
pollute.
Sorry - the truth must be told.
Did you even look at the link to the latest Spanish solar-powered steam
turbine generators I posted?
Where was that? Next to the cold fusion claims made a decade ago?
No - thought not - rathe rbelive last centuries tired old hype about nuclear
eh? Easier than new thinking I guess.
totally uneconomic
It is very economic
and it is only a matter of time before nuclear disasters would become
commonplace if thousands were built.
They would be less commonplace than mine and oil refinery disasters.
Possibly - but that's a given. I'm obviously totally against new oil powered
generators and also coal unless the 'clean-coal' technology becomes more
than a pipe dream as it is at this moment.
And why are you so against prosperity?
If only half of the money that has been spent on nuclear had gone into
solar and other forms of energy research we would be halfway there by
now.
So you say - reality suggests you are wrong.
No - reality suggest I am absolutely correct. Check it out instead of
spouting your outdated 5 year old *****.
Offer something of substance and I'll look at it.
Nuclear is motivated by politics and individual greed
Actually, anti-nukes are motivated by politics and individual greed. You
are a prime example.
Oh good grief! - and you were claiming that *I'm* insane?!
Did I stutter?
I'm far too old and far too rich for it to matter a toss to me personally.
Right.
But I'm an ex environmental management consultant and my 30 years of
experience in related fields has shown me a few things about the energy biz
that you can't even begin to imagine.
You mean you're an enviro-nut. Offer something other than wild claims
if you wish to be taken seriously.
- it has no practical basis in terms of energy or long-term economics.
Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
A W-S
but the damn oil and
gas thing just
causes a real mess.
And yet you'd sooner maintain the status quo than embrace clean efficient
energy.
Watch your attributions - I didn't write that.
I never said you did. (And you watch your attributions - as mentioned
above). Read what I wrote. You'd rather maintain the status quo than
embrace clean efficient energy.
And I would definitely embrace clean efficient energy - nuclear is extremely
polluting and totally inefficient - wake up sonny - it's YOUR future - I've
had most of my life already.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Whyte-Settlar" |
|
| Title: Re: How much gas would this save? |
11 May 2007 11:45:59 PM |
|
|
"Fred G. Mackey" <do@not.spam> wrote in message
news:-fGdnQ2uWJKrg9jbnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
"Fred G. Mackey" <do@not.spam> wrote in message
news:OKCdnbalx8nqnNnbnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@comcast.com...
Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
"studio" <tlack@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178753807.964644.101480@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 9, 5:28 am, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawill...@westnet.com.au>
wrote:
It is a huge deal - millions of tons of the stuff is building up in
storage
and no-one yet has a ****ing clue what we are going to do with it -
that's
WHY it is being stored.
Not completely true and you know it.
Some is being recycled, and the storage area in Nevada is a perfectly
good
solution for the next 10,000 years.
Yeah? OK - then what?
You mean what happens 10,000 years from now? I expect that technology
will have advanced a great deal and the people will look back on us as
being very primitive.
Nice that you are so naively optimistic.
It's naive or even optimistic to think that technology will be far more
advanced in 10,000 years than it is now?
It's naive to think that future society will remain stable enough to
continue a 10,000 year programme uninterupted.
Are you serious? For a start most of the waste storage sites in northern
Europe will quite possibly be under a mile of ice in 10,000 years just as
they were 10,000 years ago.
But you are a perfect examle of the 'I want it now let future generations
come up with a way of clearing up my mess.
Look back over the past 100 years and see how far we've advanced. You
think we're near the pinnacle of our success in technological advances?
The way things are looking it deosn't look promising that homo-sapiens
will even have a future
What do you imagine is going to wipe out our species? AIDS? Nuclear war?
Those are serious things, but they're not going to wipe out homo sapiens.
Sorry, Chicken Little - the sky is NOT falling.
I'm impressed you have such a reliable chrystal ball. For a one thing we are
in the middle of the 6th mass extinction - there is no guarentee whatsoever
that home-sapiens are not going to be included in the current wipe-out.
Extinction is the rule - evoltution the exception, not the other way round.
And we have already come within a whisker of being wiped out twice in my
lifetime alone. Once by accident and once by a drug-addled Kennedy and a
lunatic Russian playing chicken run. Sorry old chap but the sky very
definitely *is* falling - albeit so slowly that blinkered optimists can't
even see it - or rather refuse to.
let alone be advanced enough to have figured out a way of disposing of
10,000 years worth of nuclear waste.
We'll deal with it - not to worry.
Who's the 'we' - you mean someone else will have to try to deal with it and
***** them.
Typical attitude.
But we have 10,000 years to figure it out. I think that's plenty of
time.
Yeah -that's exactly the problem - we abdicate responsibiity and pass on
the problem to the next generation on the basis of '***** it, i'ts not my
problem -
Much the same way our ancestors hunted certain species to extinction and
polluted our air with steam engines and steel factories without modern
pollution controls. Funny - we're still thriving.
Are you seriously comparing spears with nuclear weapons and possible climate
change?
I thought you were an adult. There were also slightly less than the 6
billion and rising number of pollutters back then too.
let the next load of suckers sort it all out". I bet you throw your
rubbish away in the street too.
Not at all. I'm a very hard-core anti-litterer.
But you just said you want nuclear waste dumped (sorry - 'stored') all over
the planet for thousands of years and screw the consequences. Make your mind
up.
I like to hike and if I see trash on the trail, I pick it up - if for no
other reason than the next time I'm there I won't have to see it again. I
also put social pressure on people I see littering. I've gotten people to
pick up trash they just threw out their window before, while I bet you
sheepishly let them do it.
What do you think I am doing right now - I'm trying to persuade maybe just
one more person not to litter the planet. I think high level radioactive
waste is just as important as discarded ciggerette ends and sweet wrappers
etc. It's the same thing on a vastly bigger scale. So you assuage your guilt
by lecturing litterers (very commendable) but turn a blind eye to the
filthiest junk in the history of man.
I think you need to re-evalue your priorities a little if you are going to
do any good.
And who is going to look after it for '10,000 years' and who is going to
pay their wages for 10,000 years?
Obviously not you - life will go on and people will pay taxes and gov't
will continue to operate.
Really? Got any evidence for that?
Just all of recorded history. Got any evidence that society is going to
suddenly - or even gradually cease to function?
All of recorded history. Every major civilisation that ever rose, from the
Sumerians to the Romans to the Incas, has collapsed.
Most of them over-extended militarily in the quest for others resources
whilst the irrigation systems at ome became salinated. Sound familar?
What makes you think this civilisation will fare any differently. Especially
when so many don't give a toss about the filth we are creating and nuclear
weapons will be muich easier to construct given the proposed increase in
nuclear plants.
Same idea though - ***** it - let the next generation sort out my mess.
Very responsible attitude I'm sure.
And what should we do in the meantime? Destroy our economy so that our
children die of starvation by the millions and there is no one left to
worry about?
Now you are just being ridiculous. Far from 'destroying the economy' the new
'cleantech' industries will be the major driver for the next post-oil age.
It's already creating millions of highly skilled jobs and markets all over
the world - the US is missing out on a large part of it because of the
backward-looking policies of the current 'leadership'. Nulcear is so last
century.
Makes the energy a bit expensive when the wages bills run for millenia.
But hey - who gives a **** - that's for our kids to worry about eh?
No, it's for several thousand generations after your kids are born to
worry about. THey'll get by
Really?
Yes. Got any evidence that they won't?
All of history - we are just another dumb animal when it comes down to it.
As I said earlier 99.999% of all species that have ever existed are now
extinct.
You got any evidence they will?
How do you know this. Do you think they'll thank you for your foresight.
I guess you think the millions of mines you guys left in Cambodia will be
sorted out and the people will 'get by' with only one leg eh?
Life sometimes deals people a bad hand. This has NOTHING to do with
landmines in Cambodia - or the Khmer Rouge. You're trying to change the
subject.
No I'm not - I'm just demonstrating what happens when the attitude is '****
it - let future generations sort out the mess'. Cambodia is a classic
example. hundreds of thousands of kids getting maimed by the 'waste' of war
and more every day. Did you think 'future technology' would sort it out?
And don't forget it's growing exponentially - or it will if any more
white elephant power stations are built.
Is it growing exponentially?
Of course it is. Or at least it certainly will grow exponentially
Make up your mind - that is if you have one.
There is no need to be disingenuous and infantile. At the moment the volume
of nuclear waste being 'stored' is growing and has been for decades. If the
proposal is for mankind to start a global nuclear programme in order to make
up for the shortfall in oil and the exponential rise in the demand for
energy then it is perfectly obvious that the volume of nuclear waste being
'stored' will also rise exponentially.
Understand now?
as the number of nuclear white elephants increase. Why are you so keen to
make a tiny rich elite even richer based onthe lie of nuclear energy?
I'm not - why are you so keen on it?
I'm not - why are you even suggesting such nonsense when I have spent all
this time arguing against exactly that?
Who do you think will gain from nuclear energy plants? You? LOL.
Actually the volume of waste is absolutely enormous and increasing every
year.
Compared to what?
I'm not comparing it.
THe waste from petroleum? The waste from coal? The
waste from nickel mined to make batteries to power electric cars?
only fools believe the nuclear industry spokesmen
Only fools think that everything is just a huge conspiracy.
Oh god grief - no it's not a 'conspiracy' - it's just an international
organisation of huge corporations who work with corrupt governments to
further their own ends. It's called reality. It's been goin on since at
least the beginning of the 20th century. Havn't you heard.
And what has any of that got to do with the nuclear energy moguls
propaganda? If they don't have anything to hide why do they continually lie?
Why do you belive them? Are you saying you honestly believe the statements
they put out?
That's like believing Monsanto when they say they have the welfare of
starving populations at heart. Or maybe you *do* believe them too?
and there is plenty of room to store it.
Then what? All this talk about 'storing it' for 80,000 years or more
Oh, now we're up to 80,000 years?
*I'm* not up 80,000 years - that's just how long it will take for the
radioactive waste to decay - it's called a fact.
I didn't say 10,000 years - YOU did.
I was just humouring you for arguments sake.
10,000 - 80,000? In many ways it makes no difference - it is equally insane
to expect a stable society to exist for that long let alone continue to
monitor and isolate ever-increasing volumes of nuclear waste.
(and how ridicuous is that notion) but no-one has come up with a way of
disposing of it safely.
If solar power could solve all of our energy problems, I'd be 110% for
it.
Good - because it can. And eventually it will - once all the blinkered
morons realise the answer has been right over our heads for 4 billion
years.
The fact is, that it's a panacea and even the more extreme
enviro-nuts are beginning to realize nukes are cleaner and more effective
than anything else available.
Total rubbish. People like Lovelock have said a few things in favour I
suppose - but he's wrong.
Funny that they are insane 'eco-nuts' until they suppor tnuclear as a
possibility and then they are gurus all of a sudden. Well to me they are
still eco-nuts.
I never called them "gurus". They're just beginning to accept reality.
Since it's inception, the US nuclear power have not caused any major
disruptions and have advanced human understanding of physics.
Nuclear power is extremely safe at this point.
"I'm planning on living forever - so far so good"
Hmmm - you seem to be insane
Exactly.
Can't argue with that.
Can you really not understand the analogy or can you just unable to resist
being infantile and rude?
Probably both.
See below:
I was quoting that as an example of how insane your line of thinking is.
Ie. "Since it's inception the US nuclear power have no caused any
disruptions etc.."
Those weren't my words, but can you point to any "disruptions"?
Sorry - that was 'studio' who said that.
My mistake.
Do you still fail to understand? Are you seriously suggesting that this
can go on forever and that 'storing' the huge quantities of waste is a
solution?
Of course - do you seriously think we can cover the earth in solar cells?
No - but we can easily build enough solar concentrating power stations that
turn steam-turbines in the conventional manner.
They take up less room than nuclear plants and cost a fraction of the cost
to construct and maintain to say nothing of the almost infinite cost of
monitoring the waste for millenia.
Who is talking about solar-cells? I never even mentioned them.
Incredibly, you seem to be completely unaware of the latest trends in solar
technology - which kind of negates your argument against using it, does it
not?
Do you even know what a solar concentrating power-station is? Do you know
that Europe is already beginning to use them to power cities?
Do you know they can run 24/7 night and day with zero fuel cost and zero
emissions?
I find it hard to believe that you've never heard of them but maybe you
havn't - this would explain why you want to revert to a failed 20th century
technology.
Now I understand.
Look - until you are at least conversant with solar power capabilities I am
clearly wasting your time and mine discussing the relavent merits of solar
and nuclear.
Try googling the latest develeopments and get back to me when you have at
least the basic idea of what soler-concentrators are about.
A W -S
snipped... just more along the same lines.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred G. Mackey" |
|
| Title: Re: How much gas would this save? |
12 May 2007 05:33:21 PM |
|
|
Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
What you ignore is that only a very small fraction of nuclear waste is
"high level" waste.
You're also neglecting the potential for recycling this waste and the
solar collectors you are talking about are still experimental and have
not been used for any practical applications.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Whyte-Settlar" |
|
| Title: Re: How much gas would this save? |
13 May 2007 07:26:27 AM |
|
|
"Fred G. Mackey" <do@not.spam> wrote in message
news:Ouudnf1lT6LT3dvbnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@comcast.com...
Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
What you ignore is that only a very small fraction of nuclear waste is
"high level" waste.
Which still adds up to 56,000 cubic metres in the UK alone
I admit I don't know how many thousands of tons it must all add up to
worldwide - but trivialise the amount at your peril.
You're also neglecting the potential for recycling this waste and the
solar collectors you are talking about are still experimental and have not
been used for any practical applications.
Really?
Well this just shows your ignorance doesn't it?
As if anyone needed to prove it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6616651.stm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred G. Mackey" |
|
| Title: Re: How much gas would this save? |
13 May 2007 09:16:16 AM |
|
|
Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
"Fred G. Mackey" <do@not.spam> wrote in message
news:Ouudnf1lT6LT3dvbnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@comcast.com...
Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
What you ignore is that only a very small fraction of nuclear waste is
"high level" waste.
Which still adds up to 56,000 cubic metres in the UK alone
Is that the high level waste or total waste?
I admit I don't know how many thousands of tons it must all add up to
worldwide - but trivialise the amount at your peril.
Or store it deep underground.
You're also neglecting the potential for recycling this waste and the
solar collectors you are talking about are still experimental and have not
been used for any practical applications.
Really?
Well this just shows your ignorance doesn't it?
Oh my - I wasn't aware that this was online yet - of course, it isn't
even completed and what has been has been in operation for less than 2
months.
And it says it creates enough energy to power a whole 6000 homes -
during the daytime.
And it only costs 3 times as much as other forms of energy. Weren't you
telling us it was not expensive? Yes, you were. Was that your
ignorance or were you just lying?
Oh, and is the cleaner for the mirrors going to be environmentally friendly?
As if anyone needed to prove it.
Yeah - I may be ignorant, but I can learn. You, OTOH, are willfully
ignorant which means you are blind to certain things that you object to
because you've been brought up to believe "nukes are bad, 'mkay".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6616651.stm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Whyte-Settlar" |
|
| Title: Re: How much gas would this save? |
17 May 2007 02:02:30 AM |
|
|
"Fred G. Mackey" <do@not.spam> wrote in message
news:1qudnY8zbr3QgNrbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@comcast.com...
Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
"Fred G. Mackey" <do@not.spam> wrote in message
news:Ouudnf1lT6LT3dvbnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@comcast.com...
Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
What you ignore is that only a very small fraction of nuclear waste is
"high level" waste.
Which still adds up to 56,000 cubic metres in the UK alone
Is that the high level waste or total waste?
High level.
I admit I don't know how many thousands of tons it must all add up to
worldwide - but trivialise the amount at your peril.
Or store it deep underground.
Then what? You have to get rid of it eventually.
You're also neglecting the potential for recycling this waste and the
solar collectors you are talking about are still experimental and have
not been used for any practical applications.
Really?
Well this just shows your ignorance doesn't it?
Oh my - I wasn't aware that this was online yet - of course, it isn't even
completed and what has been has been in operation for less than 2 months.
Exactly - do try to keep up. I do.
And it says it creates enough energy to power a whole 6000 homes - during
the daytime.
It also says it continues after dark - only for an hour with the prototype
but the next full scale one will power 600,000 homes and run 24/7.
Very selective with your reading aren't you.
And it only costs 3 times as much as other forms of energy. Weren't you
telling us it was not expensive? Yes, you were. Was that your ignorance
or were you just lying?
Are you really that stupid?
As the article states; the protype is expensive but it will get much
cheaper - it is still WAY cheaper than nuclear.
Or are you just looking at cost of generation and forgetting the cost of
decomissioning like the nuclear lobby has always done.
The estimated cost of decomissioning two UK reactors stands at 58 billion
GPB - about 90 billion US dollars at the moment.
And that doesn't even begin to facto in the cost of storing the waste
underground 'til we figure out a way of getting rid of it - if ever.
That puts the 3 billion to build a solar plant into perspective doesn't it.
Oh, and is the cleaner for the mirrors going to be environmentally
friendly?
As if anyone needed to prove it.
Yeah - I may be ignorant, but I can learn. You, OTOH, are willfully
ignorant which means you are blind to certain things that you object to
because you've been brought up to believe "nukes are bad, 'mkay".
Not at all - I happen to have studied it at length for years - nukes are
unnecesary and expensive.
They make no economic sense whatever.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Whyte-Settlar" |
|
| Title: Re: How much gas would this save? |
17 May 2007 03:59:18 AM |
|
|
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawillers@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:464bfdd7@quokka.wn.com.au...
"Fred G. Mackey" <do@not.spam> wrote in message
news:1qudnY8zbr3QgNrbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@comcast.com...
Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
"Fred G. Mackey" <do@not.spam> wrote in message
news:Ouudnf1lT6LT3dvbnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@comcast.com...
Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
What you ignore is that only a very small fraction of nuclear waste is
"high level" waste.
Which still adds up to 56,000 cubic metres in the UK alone
Is that the high level waste or total waste?
Sorry - that figure is out of date.
It was the volume of high and medium level waste combined some years ago but
the figures below are more current.
It's difficult to get accuratefigures out the UK nuclear energy companies
for obvious reasons. They even have their own private police force. The only
one inth UK in fact.
The TOTAL volume of waste in the UK is 2.3 MILLION Cubic Metres - a cubic
metre is roughly a level pick-up truck full for those who don'tuse metric.
The cost of 'disposing' of the waste (though no-one actually has any idea
how to do this yet) is estimated to be 156 BILLION US dollars at current
levels. (which are rising all the time of course) Enough to build 50 solar
power stations alone.
In addition only 8% of this waste is currently even 'safely stored' - the
rest is kicking around in 'temporary sites' waiting for some genius to come
up with a solution or maye they are just hoping it will all go away.
Here's a few snippets from NIREX themselves - they are hardly likely to
overestimate the volumes involved.
" .......decrease of 11 percent in high level waste giving the UK a total of
2.3
million cubic metres of radioactive wastes. According to Nirex, the
decrease in the amount of high level waste from the 2001 inventory is due to
the reclassification of waste from Dounreay, which has been packaged in
concrete drums and as the waste is no longer producing heat (a
characteristic
of HLW), it has been reclassified as intermediate level waste...."
[...Dounreay, you might remember, is the site of the huge explosion caused
by the dumping of 'low level' nuclear waste down an old mine-shaft!
Described by the Nuclear Industry at the time as 'a minor incident'! You
couldn't make it up.... A W-S]
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=566&id=1071022005
continued....
"......Of the total amount of UK wastes, 1,340 cubic metres are made up of
high-level waste (HLW), 217,000 cubic metres of intermediate level waste
(ILW)
and 2.06 million cubic metres of low- level waste (LLW). Although HLW - the
most dangerous category of nuclear waste that kills almost instantly
following direct exposure - accounts for a relatively small volume of the
total
amount of wastes, it does account 95 percent of the total radioactivity and
is
dangerous for thousands of years.
Nirex calculates that 94 percent of existing wastes comes from the
reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. This is a process that the nuclear
industry
claims is akin to recycling when in fact, instead of reusing waste
products to reduce waste, this process actually creates more waste than
originally existed.
Large volumes of land on some nuclear sites is believed to have been
contaminated by leakages of radioactive liquids but most of it is still
to be characterized meaning that the total volume of radioactive waste could
still increase significantly.
The UK's LLW is stored in underground vaults at the national waste facility
at
Drigg in Cumbria but there are no facilities for the permanent storage of
ILW and HLW and Drigg itself is expected to be full within the next two
years. Just 8 percent of all nuclear waste is 'securely stored', the rest is
held at 37 temporary sites, 24 of which are coastal and could be at risk
from
the elements and rising sea levels.
The cost of burying the UK's nuclear waste has been estimated to be
potentially as high as 85 billion pounds (nearly US$152 billion).
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) is due to publish new figures
and has said
that it is "almost certain" that its initial estimate of 56 billion pounds
(US$100
billion) will be revised upwards following closer inspection of conditions
at some
of the older nuclear sites, Sellafield and Dounreay in particular. In
addition, the
initial estimate had only taken into account the costs of decommissioning
at civil nuclear sites and did not include weapons facilities or
privately-owned
plants like Sizewell B........"
www.nirs.org/mononline/nm641.pdf
Incidentily, Sellafield - which of course had it's own disastrous accident
back in the 50's - pumps million of gallons of radioactive waste water
directly into the Irish Sea every year. This despite numerous appeals from
the Governments of Ireland, Icleand and Norway (where it ends up) to close
the plant.
Indeed here is part of a press announcement these governements jointly
released recently which pretty much echoes what I've already said myself.
".....The reality remains that after 50 years of nuclear power the issue of
waste remains most intractable. The legacy of the nuclear industry for many
generations to come continues to increase with little evidence of any real
implementation of necessary long term solutions to the waste issue. Nuclear
waste reprocessing, advocated as a solution to the management of nuclear
waste, has long since lost its lustre and today the industry remains
economically and environmentally untenable....."
http://www.norway.org.uk/policy/environment/dublin_nuclear.htm
Maybe you think all those governments aren't as smart as you?
Taking into account the fact that - even if nuclear were safe and
non-polluting
and wasn't cripplingly expensive for the taxpayer - you have to remember
that
it is only a temporary stopgap anyway. There is a finite amount of uranium
and the 'reprocessing' has al lthe problems outlined by Nirex above.
If we are going to spend billions on an alternative energy supply then it
makes sense to go for one that is sustainable.
By the way - I am old enough to have been 'brought up' when nuclear was to
be our saviour - the exact opposite of your claim. I also have a BSc in
Environmental Management and was a succesfull environmental management
consultant before going into property development - so I'm not as completely
stupid as you like to think.
A W-S
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "studio" |
|
| Title: Re: How much gas would this save? |
10 May 2007 08:51:09 PM |
|
|
On May 10, 6:35 am, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawill...@westnet.com.au>
wrote:
"studio" <t...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178753807.964644.101480@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 9, 5:28 am, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawill...@westnet.com.au>
wrote:
It is a huge deal - millions of tons of the stuff is building up in
storage
and no-one yet has a ****ing clue what we are going to do with it -
that's
WHY it is being stored.
Not completely true and you know it.
Some is being recycled, and the storage area in Nevada is a perfectly
good
solution for the next 10,000 years.
Yeah? OK - then what?
Mainly irrelivant.
You might as well ask what happens when the sun goes out in 4 billion
years.
I'll wave to you as I rocket past your slow solar space ship in my new
nuclear
powered Quark 2 starship.
And who is going to look after it for '10,000 years' and who is going to pay
their wages for 10,000 years? Makes the energy a bit expensive when the
wages bills run for millenia. But hey - who gives a **** - that's for our
kids to worry about eh?
And you think your kids should be the first not to worry about
anything?
And don't forget it's growing exponentially - or it will if any more white
elephant power stations are built.
And yes - there will be nuclear disasters.
There's already been a non-nuclear disaster that have caused 10's of
thousands of deaths.
Wasn't solar though was it?
No, it's over oil and the amount of immediate deaths continues
everyday.
Since it's inception, the US nuclear power have not caused any major
disruptions and have advanced human understanding of physics.
Nuclear power is extremely safe at this point.
"I'm planning on living forever - so far so good"
I am for lots more solar and some nuclear power,
Why nuclear when it isn't needed, is extremely polluting, totally uneconomic
and it is only a matter of time before nuclear disasters would become
commonplace if thousands were built.
No one said thousands had to be built.
Nuclear power is much safer than it used to be.
My main point is having more than enough energy, not meerly just
enough.
In order to move to electric cars and trucks, massive amounts of
electricity
not currently available will be needed.
Solar energy is preferable, but we shouldn't limit ourselves to any
one solution.
If only half of the money that has been spent on nuclear had gone into solar
and other forms of energy research we would be halfway there by now.
Nuclear is motivated by politics and individual greed - it has no practical
basis in terms of energy or long-term economics.
? If only half the money spent on/by politicians were spent on solar
we'd also be halfway there.
The point is that no politician has any vision beyond their next
election.
Since President Nixon, all politicians have said we need to move to
alternative
sources, and the amount of movement doesn't even keep up with the
increase
of population.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Solipsism Bush" |
|
| Title: Re: How much gas would this save? |
08 May 2007 09:16:16 AM |
|
|
"studio" <tlack@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178603304.604790.322770@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 12:39 am, Lady Liberty
<LadyLibe...@NOSPAMPlanetaryBillOfRights.org> wrote:
They waste gas. MOST of them could probably easily be
4 way turned into 2 way stop signs...
2.) Permit U turns,...
3.) Get rid of red arrows on lights and TRUST PEOPLE.
...how about educating some of these bad ( ignorant drivers?
You'll be asking Bush's other "base", the insurance industry to jump our
premiums if you think you can trust hillbillies all drunk.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred G. Mackey" |
|
| Title: Re: How much gas would this save? |
08 May 2007 08:44:12 AM |
|
|
studio wrote:
On May 8, 12:39 am, Lady Liberty
<LadyLibe...@NOSPAMPlanetaryBillOfRights.org> wrote:
They waste gas. MOST of them could probably easily be
4 way turned into 2 way stop signs...
2.) Permit U turns,...
3.) Get rid of red arrows on lights and TRUST PEOPLE.
...how about educating some of these bad ( ignorant drivers?
While you are right technically speaking,
a significant amount of gas would not be saved from any of these
ideas.
The meer fact that there are new drivers on the road everyday who
just
got their first drivers license by far outweighs all the ideas you
proposed.
Simple - we need to STOP handing out drivers licenses like party favors.
Administer tests which actually evaluate the skills and knowledge of
the persona applying for the license.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Miles" |
|
| Title: Re: How much gas would this save? |
08 May 2007 06:05:16 AM |
|
|
studio wrote:
On May 8, 12:39 am, Lady Liberty
<LadyLibe...@NOSPAMPlanetaryBillOfRights.org> wrote:
They waste gas. MOST of them could probably easily be
4 way turned into 2 way stop signs...
2.) Permit U turns,...
3.) Get rid of red arrows on lights and TRUST PEOPLE.
...how about educating some of these bad ( ignorant drivers?
While you are right technically speaking,
a significant amount of gas would not be saved from any of these
ideas.
The meer fact that there are new drivers on the road everyday who
just
got their first drivers license by far outweighs all the ideas you
proposed.
All these methods of saving and producing new gas are just so much BS
politicians are using against the people for their own power of
control.
You want real solutions?
Electric.
Have a massive solar program put in place, and augment it with
additional nuclear
power generation to create electricity, then move to cheap abundant
electricity for
rechargeable batteries.
The electric car, sadly, is practically dead:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/13/1421243
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Whyte-Settlar" |
|
| Title: Re: How much gas would this save? |
08 May 2007 10:59:41 AM |
|
|
"Josh Miles" <no@thanks.com> wrote in message
news:8qednSZdTP_1xN3bnZ2dnUVZ_r7inZ2d@sigecom.net...
The electric car, sadly, is practically dead:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/13/1421243
You need to get out more.
http://www.teslamotors.com/
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/10/mitsubishi_acce.html
It's just starting up.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geo" |
|
| Title: Re: How much gas would this save? |
09 May 2007 07:05:36 AM |
|
|
On May 8, 12:39 am, Lady Liberty
<LadyLibe...@NOSPAMPlanetaryBillOfRights.org> wrote:
With gas going up in price about 35% since January, this would make an
interesting research project.
We have a few ideas that could save significant amounts of gas each year
for the drivers in this country.
Some bright college types should pick up this ball and research it.
1.) Eliminate 4 way stop signs. How many 4 way stop signs are there in
this country? They waste gas. MOST of them could probably easily be
turned into 2 way stop signs and when added over the whole country,
might save people a huge amount of gas.
2.) Permit U turns, if done safely, except in the rare places where they
would be unsafe to permit. When I moved to the Denver area, I made a
safe U turn in a neighborhood back street, right in front of a cop, and
discovered that U turns are illegal in most of Colorado, when I got a
ticket for a harmless thing. That wastes a LOT of gas, as we sometimes
have to drive half a mile to find some place to turn around, or drive
around entire blocks, because U turns are illegal.
3.) Get rid of red arrows on lights and TRUST PEOPLE. How many times did
you have to sit burning gas at a red arrow, with absolutely no one
coming from the other direction and clear visibility? A red arrow is a
sign that the government doesn't trust you to make your own turns
safely. It would save lots of gas every year if most of them were
eliminated and turned into open green lights where you could turn if you
did it safely.
And while you're at it, how about educating some of these bad ( ignorant
) drivers? You know, the ones who sit behind the white line at an open
green light and won't turn, as if they think they're only allowed to
turn if there's a green arrow there, and the light turns red, then THEY
turn from behind the line, leaving YOU to suffer another wait because of
their stupidity. Have a public campaign to teach these people, who
obviously got their drivers licenses out of cracker jacks boxes, that
they're SUPPOSED to pull up into the intersection and turn when it's
open, or when the light turns red, and complete their turn, allowing a
few more cars through.
--
Please read about the true principles of liberty at:
http//planetarybillofrights.org/
I have a better idea. How about drill in Alaska, the gulf, explore
the shale deposits in Wyoming and Utah, build more refineries, more
nuclear plants, expand coal operations. It's all there for us if only
some people would get the hell out of the way and let us end our
dependence on foreign energy. We are not going to conserve our way
out of this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "studio" |
|
| Title: Re: How much gas would this save? |
09 May 2007 06:50:48 PM |
|
|
On May 9, 8:05 am, Geo <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I have a better idea. How about drill in Alaska, the gulf, explore
the shale deposits in Wyoming and Utah, build more refineries, more
nuclear plants, expand coal operations. It's all there for us if only
some people would get the hell out of the way and let us end our
dependence on foreign energy. We are not going to conserve our way
out of this.
Ask President Bush, he had a republican controlled house until
recently.
Doesn't seem like he tried very hard.
The oil shale thing is expensive, not only to get, but to refine, and
should probably be a prohibited venture.
Many thousands of acres of prime forestry would be ripped to shreds
never to be seen again through strip mining. This is unacceptable.
This is America the Beautiful, not America the strip mine pit.
No need for coal if you have enough nuclear or solar generation.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
