Bill Funk

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:32:52 -0000, "Dori Schmetterling"
<ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote:

>Nuclear power is not the answer, unfortunately. In Britain in the
>fifties/sixties it was promoted as the ultimate source of cheap power, but
>we have had nothing of the sort; it was just a chimera. The company that
>was left with the nuclear power stations after privatisation needs large
>state subsidies just to keep going. And we can't close it down because we
>don't what to do with the nuclear materials. All European countries (except
>maybe France) have put nuclear power on hold or have decided against it.

But not for technical reasons.
>
>Not only can accidents happen in the west (Three Mile Island, among others),
>there are huge issues of waste disposal. AFAIK, no waste from UK nuclear
>reactors has been permanently stored anywhere. And when does nuclear
>material with a half-life of centuries finally degrade into harmless
>components?

As I said, the problems were not with the technology, but with the
people.
Storage isn't the problem the ecos make it out to be. They simply
refuse to accept that it can be stored under *any* conditions.
It's really funny to hear them put forth a scenario where the
containment would fail, but the scenario would mean catastrophe so bad
that local release of radioactivity would be a minor concern.
>
>I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first opponents of
>wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame them?), but
>nuclear power is not, either.

But it *is* being used with very few problems.
And at a very competitive price.
With the ecos refusing to allow just about *any* major new generating
plants (especially on the west coast), we really need to find
something; nuclear fits the bill better than fossil-fuel generating
plants.
>
>DAS

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Dan Gates

Brent P wrote:
> In article <lQuwb.8682$t01.1922@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
>
>>The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
>>fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
>
>
> Properly placed large scale wind farms can take some of that load or
> in the very least make enough energy so that new fossil fuel plants
> need not built.
>


Yes, but what happens when we have all of these wind farms and reduce
the total "wind energy" out there. This is no joke! The total amount
of energy in the world is finite. If we convert wind energy to
electricity on a global scale, what are the global implications? I
don't think we have to worry for a while, but we should consider it!


Dan

Dan Gates

Brent P wrote:
> In article <lQuwb.8682$t01.1922@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
>
>>The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
>>fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
>
>
> Properly placed large scale wind farms can take some of that load or
> in the very least make enough energy so that new fossil fuel plants
> need not built.
>


Yes, but what happens when we have all of these wind farms and reduce
the total "wind energy" out there. This is no joke! The total amount
of energy in the world is finite. If we convert wind energy to
electricity on a global scale, what are the global implications? I
don't think we have to worry for a while, but we should consider it!


Dan

Dan Gates

Brent P wrote:
> In article <lQuwb.8682$t01.1922@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
>
>>The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
>>fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
>
>
> Properly placed large scale wind farms can take some of that load or
> in the very least make enough energy so that new fossil fuel plants
> need not built.
>


Yes, but what happens when we have all of these wind farms and reduce
the total "wind energy" out there. This is no joke! The total amount
of energy in the world is finite. If we convert wind energy to
electricity on a global scale, what are the global implications? I
don't think we have to worry for a while, but we should consider it!


Dan

Dan Gates

Robert A. Matern wrote:
> There's been a Ice Age soon theory for most of this century... not a
> recent claim at all.
>
> http://www.iceagenow.com
>
>
>

In "real" terms, SOON could mean that your grandchildren's grandchildren
wont have to worry about it, but that doesn't mean we should go
hell-bent-for-leather without a care for what we might be doing to the
world.

Dan

Dan Gates

Robert A. Matern wrote:
> There's been a Ice Age soon theory for most of this century... not a
> recent claim at all.
>
> http://www.iceagenow.com
>
>
>

In "real" terms, SOON could mean that your grandchildren's grandchildren
wont have to worry about it, but that doesn't mean we should go
hell-bent-for-leather without a care for what we might be doing to the
world.

Dan

Dan Gates

Robert A. Matern wrote:
> There's been a Ice Age soon theory for most of this century... not a
> recent claim at all.
>
> http://www.iceagenow.com
>
>
>

In "real" terms, SOON could mean that your grandchildren's grandchildren
wont have to worry about it, but that doesn't mean we should go
hell-bent-for-leather without a care for what we might be doing to the
world.

Dan

Brent P

In article <BrGdnRgZ_s4ZIV6i4p2dnA@magma.ca>, Dan Gates wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <lQuwb.8682$t01.1922@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
>>
>>>The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
>>>fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
>>
>>
>> Properly placed large scale wind farms can take some of that load or
>> in the very least make enough energy so that new fossil fuel plants
>> need not built.
>>
>
>
> Yes, but what happens when we have all of these wind farms and reduce
> the total "wind energy" out there. This is no joke! The total amount
> of energy in the world is finite. If we convert wind energy to
> electricity on a global scale, what are the global implications? I
> don't think we have to worry for a while, but we should consider it!

That's exactly the sort of arguement I would expect to see from
anti-energy environmentalists eventually. It's also along the same
lines of ones I have used when various energy generation methods
are considered totally without side effects to the environment.

There is some side effect to all forms, all forms can be opposed
on that ground. Some are cleaner than others, some problems are more
livable than others. And I find it amusing the way the objections
shift depending on the method proposed to generate electricity.

Can't build a coal plant because of the pollution and CO2, can't build
a nuke because of the waste and what might happen if 4 layers of
redundant systems go bad and homer simpson is at the controls, can't
build a wind farm because it's ugly and some birds will run into it,
can't build a dam because it floods a local ecosystem, etc and so on.

Adding up all these objections gets us the status quo. But then the
status quo is attacked in that people are using too much energy. I
ask myself what the goal is. And it's quite clear to me the goal
has *NOTHING* to do with conservation or the environment. The
environment is but the excuse to achieve other goals.

IMO, if someone completed Tesla's work next week and we all had free
electricity from the 'ether' there would still be environmental
objections to the process.

Brent P

In article <BrGdnRgZ_s4ZIV6i4p2dnA@magma.ca>, Dan Gates wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <lQuwb.8682$t01.1922@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
>>
>>>The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
>>>fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
>>
>>
>> Properly placed large scale wind farms can take some of that load or
>> in the very least make enough energy so that new fossil fuel plants
>> need not built.
>>
>
>
> Yes, but what happens when we have all of these wind farms and reduce
> the total "wind energy" out there. This is no joke! The total amount
> of energy in the world is finite. If we convert wind energy to
> electricity on a global scale, what are the global implications? I
> don't think we have to worry for a while, but we should consider it!

That's exactly the sort of arguement I would expect to see from
anti-energy environmentalists eventually. It's also along the same
lines of ones I have used when various energy generation methods
are considered totally without side effects to the environment.

There is some side effect to all forms, all forms can be opposed
on that ground. Some are cleaner than others, some problems are more
livable than others. And I find it amusing the way the objections
shift depending on the method proposed to generate electricity.

Can't build a coal plant because of the pollution and CO2, can't build
a nuke because of the waste and what might happen if 4 layers of
redundant systems go bad and homer simpson is at the controls, can't
build a wind farm because it's ugly and some birds will run into it,
can't build a dam because it floods a local ecosystem, etc and so on.

Adding up all these objections gets us the status quo. But then the
status quo is attacked in that people are using too much energy. I
ask myself what the goal is. And it's quite clear to me the goal
has *NOTHING* to do with conservation or the environment. The
environment is but the excuse to achieve other goals.

IMO, if someone completed Tesla's work next week and we all had free
electricity from the 'ether' there would still be environmental
objections to the process.

Brent P

In article <BrGdnRgZ_s4ZIV6i4p2dnA@magma.ca>, Dan Gates wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <lQuwb.8682$t01.1922@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
>>
>>>The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
>>>fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
>>
>>
>> Properly placed large scale wind farms can take some of that load or
>> in the very least make enough energy so that new fossil fuel plants
>> need not built.
>>
>
>
> Yes, but what happens when we have all of these wind farms and reduce
> the total "wind energy" out there. This is no joke! The total amount
> of energy in the world is finite. If we convert wind energy to
> electricity on a global scale, what are the global implications? I
> don't think we have to worry for a while, but we should consider it!

That's exactly the sort of arguement I would expect to see from
anti-energy environmentalists eventually. It's also along the same
lines of ones I have used when various energy generation methods
are considered totally without side effects to the environment.

There is some side effect to all forms, all forms can be opposed
on that ground. Some are cleaner than others, some problems are more
livable than others. And I find it amusing the way the objections
shift depending on the method proposed to generate electricity.

Can't build a coal plant because of the pollution and CO2, can't build
a nuke because of the waste and what might happen if 4 layers of
redundant systems go bad and homer simpson is at the controls, can't
build a wind farm because it's ugly and some birds will run into it,
can't build a dam because it floods a local ecosystem, etc and so on.

Adding up all these objections gets us the status quo. But then the
status quo is attacked in that people are using too much energy. I
ask myself what the goal is. And it's quite clear to me the goal
has *NOTHING* to do with conservation or the environment. The
environment is but the excuse to achieve other goals.

IMO, if someone completed Tesla's work next week and we all had free
electricity from the 'ether' there would still be environmental
objections to the process.