Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4961
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
See below. My replies also apply to similar points put by some other
posters.
I am not saying that I have any pat answers for future sources of energy,
but I am implying that there is no single definite answer at present.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hjvwb.294485$Tr4.929288@attbi_s03...
> In article <3fc2409e$0$7007$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>, Dori
Schmetterling 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.
> >
> > 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?
>
>
> So you base your fears on 1/4 century or older technology.
FROM DAS: At the time nuclear power was touted as THE way to go. I was
really quite in favour as I thought much of the criticism overblown and only
used by politicians to curry favour with voters. Hindsight is 20/20 vision
and irrelevant. We cannot foresee what other consequences nuclear power
stations can have. It is, I believe, naive to think that because we have
moved on that a Three Mile Island could never happen again. Of course it
could, because human error can happen again. We have had incidents in
western Europe, too, AFAIK.
Do you think that the Bhopal disaster could not happen again? (Toxic
chemical leak at a Dow plant in India.) It certainly was not the intention
of Dow or a lack of safety rules that caused it, but the negligent atitude
of one or two workers locally.
>
> If CO2 is as big of a problem as we are told it is, radioactive waste
> is but a tiny fraction as bad. If CO2 is really that bad, then nukes
> are one way to go to a less damaging source of energy. Coal plants
> actually spew more radioactive materials than nuclear plants.
FROM DAS: I am not sure that CO2 is such a big problem, considering that
every night huge amounts of the gas are released by plants...
I am not talking about the waste 'spewed' out during operation, but the
waste product left after processing. You have to answer the question of
what is to be done with radioactive material that has a half-life of
centuries.
Most location proposals for bury the stuff are not implemented because the
ground is not geologically stable. Leakage into ground water would be the
result. What a legacy to leave our grandchildren!
>
> > 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.
>
> With the those politically on the left and environmentialists opposing
> large scale wind farms proposed by various developers who see wind
> turbines as a money maker that can provide clean energy they show their
> true stripes. They want to control how people live, and abundant clean
> energy threatens that goal.
FROM DAS: Wind farms can be a blot in the landscape. They may be ok in the
Mid-Western prairies when used to power the needs of a few hundred thousand
people, but I can't see them being built in northern New Jersey or the
suburbs of Paris to meet the needs of conurbations containing millions of
people.
posters.
I am not saying that I have any pat answers for future sources of energy,
but I am implying that there is no single definite answer at present.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hjvwb.294485$Tr4.929288@attbi_s03...
> In article <3fc2409e$0$7007$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>, Dori
Schmetterling 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.
> >
> > 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?
>
>
> So you base your fears on 1/4 century or older technology.
FROM DAS: At the time nuclear power was touted as THE way to go. I was
really quite in favour as I thought much of the criticism overblown and only
used by politicians to curry favour with voters. Hindsight is 20/20 vision
and irrelevant. We cannot foresee what other consequences nuclear power
stations can have. It is, I believe, naive to think that because we have
moved on that a Three Mile Island could never happen again. Of course it
could, because human error can happen again. We have had incidents in
western Europe, too, AFAIK.
Do you think that the Bhopal disaster could not happen again? (Toxic
chemical leak at a Dow plant in India.) It certainly was not the intention
of Dow or a lack of safety rules that caused it, but the negligent atitude
of one or two workers locally.
>
> If CO2 is as big of a problem as we are told it is, radioactive waste
> is but a tiny fraction as bad. If CO2 is really that bad, then nukes
> are one way to go to a less damaging source of energy. Coal plants
> actually spew more radioactive materials than nuclear plants.
FROM DAS: I am not sure that CO2 is such a big problem, considering that
every night huge amounts of the gas are released by plants...
I am not talking about the waste 'spewed' out during operation, but the
waste product left after processing. You have to answer the question of
what is to be done with radioactive material that has a half-life of
centuries.
Most location proposals for bury the stuff are not implemented because the
ground is not geologically stable. Leakage into ground water would be the
result. What a legacy to leave our grandchildren!
>
> > 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.
>
> With the those politically on the left and environmentialists opposing
> large scale wind farms proposed by various developers who see wind
> turbines as a money maker that can provide clean energy they show their
> true stripes. They want to control how people live, and abundant clean
> energy threatens that goal.
FROM DAS: Wind farms can be a blot in the landscape. They may be ok in the
Mid-Western prairies when used to power the needs of a few hundred thousand
people, but I can't see them being built in northern New Jersey or the
suburbs of Paris to meet the needs of conurbations containing millions of
people.
#4962
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
See below. My replies also apply to similar points put by some other
posters.
I am not saying that I have any pat answers for future sources of energy,
but I am implying that there is no single definite answer at present.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hjvwb.294485$Tr4.929288@attbi_s03...
> In article <3fc2409e$0$7007$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>, Dori
Schmetterling 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.
> >
> > 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?
>
>
> So you base your fears on 1/4 century or older technology.
FROM DAS: At the time nuclear power was touted as THE way to go. I was
really quite in favour as I thought much of the criticism overblown and only
used by politicians to curry favour with voters. Hindsight is 20/20 vision
and irrelevant. We cannot foresee what other consequences nuclear power
stations can have. It is, I believe, naive to think that because we have
moved on that a Three Mile Island could never happen again. Of course it
could, because human error can happen again. We have had incidents in
western Europe, too, AFAIK.
Do you think that the Bhopal disaster could not happen again? (Toxic
chemical leak at a Dow plant in India.) It certainly was not the intention
of Dow or a lack of safety rules that caused it, but the negligent atitude
of one or two workers locally.
>
> If CO2 is as big of a problem as we are told it is, radioactive waste
> is but a tiny fraction as bad. If CO2 is really that bad, then nukes
> are one way to go to a less damaging source of energy. Coal plants
> actually spew more radioactive materials than nuclear plants.
FROM DAS: I am not sure that CO2 is such a big problem, considering that
every night huge amounts of the gas are released by plants...
I am not talking about the waste 'spewed' out during operation, but the
waste product left after processing. You have to answer the question of
what is to be done with radioactive material that has a half-life of
centuries.
Most location proposals for bury the stuff are not implemented because the
ground is not geologically stable. Leakage into ground water would be the
result. What a legacy to leave our grandchildren!
>
> > 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.
>
> With the those politically on the left and environmentialists opposing
> large scale wind farms proposed by various developers who see wind
> turbines as a money maker that can provide clean energy they show their
> true stripes. They want to control how people live, and abundant clean
> energy threatens that goal.
FROM DAS: Wind farms can be a blot in the landscape. They may be ok in the
Mid-Western prairies when used to power the needs of a few hundred thousand
people, but I can't see them being built in northern New Jersey or the
suburbs of Paris to meet the needs of conurbations containing millions of
people.
posters.
I am not saying that I have any pat answers for future sources of energy,
but I am implying that there is no single definite answer at present.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hjvwb.294485$Tr4.929288@attbi_s03...
> In article <3fc2409e$0$7007$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>, Dori
Schmetterling 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.
> >
> > 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?
>
>
> So you base your fears on 1/4 century or older technology.
FROM DAS: At the time nuclear power was touted as THE way to go. I was
really quite in favour as I thought much of the criticism overblown and only
used by politicians to curry favour with voters. Hindsight is 20/20 vision
and irrelevant. We cannot foresee what other consequences nuclear power
stations can have. It is, I believe, naive to think that because we have
moved on that a Three Mile Island could never happen again. Of course it
could, because human error can happen again. We have had incidents in
western Europe, too, AFAIK.
Do you think that the Bhopal disaster could not happen again? (Toxic
chemical leak at a Dow plant in India.) It certainly was not the intention
of Dow or a lack of safety rules that caused it, but the negligent atitude
of one or two workers locally.
>
> If CO2 is as big of a problem as we are told it is, radioactive waste
> is but a tiny fraction as bad. If CO2 is really that bad, then nukes
> are one way to go to a less damaging source of energy. Coal plants
> actually spew more radioactive materials than nuclear plants.
FROM DAS: I am not sure that CO2 is such a big problem, considering that
every night huge amounts of the gas are released by plants...
I am not talking about the waste 'spewed' out during operation, but the
waste product left after processing. You have to answer the question of
what is to be done with radioactive material that has a half-life of
centuries.
Most location proposals for bury the stuff are not implemented because the
ground is not geologically stable. Leakage into ground water would be the
result. What a legacy to leave our grandchildren!
>
> > 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.
>
> With the those politically on the left and environmentialists opposing
> large scale wind farms proposed by various developers who see wind
> turbines as a money maker that can provide clean energy they show their
> true stripes. They want to control how people live, and abundant clean
> energy threatens that goal.
FROM DAS: Wind farms can be a blot in the landscape. They may be ok in the
Mid-Western prairies when used to power the needs of a few hundred thousand
people, but I can't see them being built in northern New Jersey or the
suburbs of Paris to meet the needs of conurbations containing millions of
people.
#4963
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
See below. My replies also apply to similar points put by some other
posters.
I am not saying that I have any pat answers for future sources of energy,
but I am implying that there is no single definite answer at present.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hjvwb.294485$Tr4.929288@attbi_s03...
> In article <3fc2409e$0$7007$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>, Dori
Schmetterling 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.
> >
> > 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?
>
>
> So you base your fears on 1/4 century or older technology.
FROM DAS: At the time nuclear power was touted as THE way to go. I was
really quite in favour as I thought much of the criticism overblown and only
used by politicians to curry favour with voters. Hindsight is 20/20 vision
and irrelevant. We cannot foresee what other consequences nuclear power
stations can have. It is, I believe, naive to think that because we have
moved on that a Three Mile Island could never happen again. Of course it
could, because human error can happen again. We have had incidents in
western Europe, too, AFAIK.
Do you think that the Bhopal disaster could not happen again? (Toxic
chemical leak at a Dow plant in India.) It certainly was not the intention
of Dow or a lack of safety rules that caused it, but the negligent atitude
of one or two workers locally.
>
> If CO2 is as big of a problem as we are told it is, radioactive waste
> is but a tiny fraction as bad. If CO2 is really that bad, then nukes
> are one way to go to a less damaging source of energy. Coal plants
> actually spew more radioactive materials than nuclear plants.
FROM DAS: I am not sure that CO2 is such a big problem, considering that
every night huge amounts of the gas are released by plants...
I am not talking about the waste 'spewed' out during operation, but the
waste product left after processing. You have to answer the question of
what is to be done with radioactive material that has a half-life of
centuries.
Most location proposals for bury the stuff are not implemented because the
ground is not geologically stable. Leakage into ground water would be the
result. What a legacy to leave our grandchildren!
>
> > 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.
>
> With the those politically on the left and environmentialists opposing
> large scale wind farms proposed by various developers who see wind
> turbines as a money maker that can provide clean energy they show their
> true stripes. They want to control how people live, and abundant clean
> energy threatens that goal.
FROM DAS: Wind farms can be a blot in the landscape. They may be ok in the
Mid-Western prairies when used to power the needs of a few hundred thousand
people, but I can't see them being built in northern New Jersey or the
suburbs of Paris to meet the needs of conurbations containing millions of
people.
posters.
I am not saying that I have any pat answers for future sources of energy,
but I am implying that there is no single definite answer at present.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hjvwb.294485$Tr4.929288@attbi_s03...
> In article <3fc2409e$0$7007$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>, Dori
Schmetterling 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.
> >
> > 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?
>
>
> So you base your fears on 1/4 century or older technology.
FROM DAS: At the time nuclear power was touted as THE way to go. I was
really quite in favour as I thought much of the criticism overblown and only
used by politicians to curry favour with voters. Hindsight is 20/20 vision
and irrelevant. We cannot foresee what other consequences nuclear power
stations can have. It is, I believe, naive to think that because we have
moved on that a Three Mile Island could never happen again. Of course it
could, because human error can happen again. We have had incidents in
western Europe, too, AFAIK.
Do you think that the Bhopal disaster could not happen again? (Toxic
chemical leak at a Dow plant in India.) It certainly was not the intention
of Dow or a lack of safety rules that caused it, but the negligent atitude
of one or two workers locally.
>
> If CO2 is as big of a problem as we are told it is, radioactive waste
> is but a tiny fraction as bad. If CO2 is really that bad, then nukes
> are one way to go to a less damaging source of energy. Coal plants
> actually spew more radioactive materials than nuclear plants.
FROM DAS: I am not sure that CO2 is such a big problem, considering that
every night huge amounts of the gas are released by plants...
I am not talking about the waste 'spewed' out during operation, but the
waste product left after processing. You have to answer the question of
what is to be done with radioactive material that has a half-life of
centuries.
Most location proposals for bury the stuff are not implemented because the
ground is not geologically stable. Leakage into ground water would be the
result. What a legacy to leave our grandchildren!
>
> > 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.
>
> With the those politically on the left and environmentialists opposing
> large scale wind farms proposed by various developers who see wind
> turbines as a money maker that can provide clean energy they show their
> true stripes. They want to control how people live, and abundant clean
> energy threatens that goal.
FROM DAS: Wind farms can be a blot in the landscape. They may be ok in the
Mid-Western prairies when used to power the needs of a few hundred thousand
people, but I can't see them being built in northern New Jersey or the
suburbs of Paris to meet the needs of conurbations containing millions of
people.
#4964
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brent P wrote:
> 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.
I didn't put this out there to say "DON'T DO IT". The company I work
for is does this kind of work. I think that it is a great source of
electricity. I just think it is something we have to examine and have
some knowledge of before we get too deep.
Dan
> 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.
I didn't put this out there to say "DON'T DO IT". The company I work
for is does this kind of work. I think that it is a great source of
electricity. I just think it is something we have to examine and have
some knowledge of before we get too deep.
Dan
#4965
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brent P wrote:
> 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.
I didn't put this out there to say "DON'T DO IT". The company I work
for is does this kind of work. I think that it is a great source of
electricity. I just think it is something we have to examine and have
some knowledge of before we get too deep.
Dan
> 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.
I didn't put this out there to say "DON'T DO IT". The company I work
for is does this kind of work. I think that it is a great source of
electricity. I just think it is something we have to examine and have
some knowledge of before we get too deep.
Dan
#4966
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brent P wrote:
> 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.
I didn't put this out there to say "DON'T DO IT". The company I work
for is does this kind of work. I think that it is a great source of
electricity. I just think it is something we have to examine and have
some knowledge of before we get too deep.
Dan
> 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.
I didn't put this out there to say "DON'T DO IT". The company I work
for is does this kind of work. I think that it is a great source of
electricity. I just think it is something we have to examine and have
some knowledge of before we get too deep.
Dan
#4967
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:<8T6wb.9987$Gj.1947@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b5b4685f.0311220857.5c6200cf@posting.google.c om...
> > Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
> news:<olesrvsl6emilb2rgfbes8n605i91jdluj@4ax.com>. ..
> > > >>>> >To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure
> is worse than
> > > >>>> >the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
> case is being
> > > >>>> >dramatically overstated.
> >
> > I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
> > it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
> > billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
> > conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
> > fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
> > dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
> > cities as the ocean rises.
> >
>
> You've got conservatives all wrong then. Part of the reason conservatives
> tend towards opposing the global warming crowd is who that crowd is and what
> their aims are. Headline environmentalism has transformed over the last
> decade or so into an extremist and anti-capitalist point of view. Whatever
> the facts are regarding global warming, the extreme view pulls into it's
> agenda the shift of power from capitalism towards socialism.
And I suppose that if the 'environmentalists' advised against jumping
off the roof, the good conservatives would all dutifully line up to do
so?
The trouble with this whole mess is the media/public's propensity to
cast *everything* into a contest between two equivalently valid
opponents, pick one on the basis of some emotional impulse.
Environmentalism vs. corporatism, prolife vs prochoice, evolutionism
vs creationism, proBush vs. proSaddam, all are treated the same as the
choice of RedSox vs. Yankees. In fact, contrary to the news headlines
the other week, the decision to drop enforcement of the Clean Air laws
is not a 'blow to environmentalists'; it is, in fact, a blow to all
air-breathing organisms in the US.
> We have a fossil fueled based economy. Someday it will change and thank
> goodness for it too, but, God willing, it won't be on the extremist
> environmentalist schedule or terms.
Yes, as the decisions made regarding fish harvesting limits were not
made on the 'extremist environmentalist' (aka scientist) schedule or
terms, instead splitting the difference between the numbers the
scientists said were the max that would not seriously deplete the
fishery stocks, and the numbers the fishing industry said were
necessary economically. That's the American way, isn't it; compromist
between the two sides. And the result is, of course, that the
fisheries are now overfished, and the industry is in worse shape than
it would have been if the scientists' recommendations had been
followed in the first place.
> "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b5b4685f.0311220857.5c6200cf@posting.google.c om...
> > Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
> news:<olesrvsl6emilb2rgfbes8n605i91jdluj@4ax.com>. ..
> > > >>>> >To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure
> is worse than
> > > >>>> >the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
> case is being
> > > >>>> >dramatically overstated.
> >
> > I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
> > it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
> > billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
> > conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
> > fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
> > dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
> > cities as the ocean rises.
> >
>
> You've got conservatives all wrong then. Part of the reason conservatives
> tend towards opposing the global warming crowd is who that crowd is and what
> their aims are. Headline environmentalism has transformed over the last
> decade or so into an extremist and anti-capitalist point of view. Whatever
> the facts are regarding global warming, the extreme view pulls into it's
> agenda the shift of power from capitalism towards socialism.
And I suppose that if the 'environmentalists' advised against jumping
off the roof, the good conservatives would all dutifully line up to do
so?
The trouble with this whole mess is the media/public's propensity to
cast *everything* into a contest between two equivalently valid
opponents, pick one on the basis of some emotional impulse.
Environmentalism vs. corporatism, prolife vs prochoice, evolutionism
vs creationism, proBush vs. proSaddam, all are treated the same as the
choice of RedSox vs. Yankees. In fact, contrary to the news headlines
the other week, the decision to drop enforcement of the Clean Air laws
is not a 'blow to environmentalists'; it is, in fact, a blow to all
air-breathing organisms in the US.
> We have a fossil fueled based economy. Someday it will change and thank
> goodness for it too, but, God willing, it won't be on the extremist
> environmentalist schedule or terms.
Yes, as the decisions made regarding fish harvesting limits were not
made on the 'extremist environmentalist' (aka scientist) schedule or
terms, instead splitting the difference between the numbers the
scientists said were the max that would not seriously deplete the
fishery stocks, and the numbers the fishing industry said were
necessary economically. That's the American way, isn't it; compromist
between the two sides. And the result is, of course, that the
fisheries are now overfished, and the industry is in worse shape than
it would have been if the scientists' recommendations had been
followed in the first place.
#4968
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:<8T6wb.9987$Gj.1947@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b5b4685f.0311220857.5c6200cf@posting.google.c om...
> > Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
> news:<olesrvsl6emilb2rgfbes8n605i91jdluj@4ax.com>. ..
> > > >>>> >To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure
> is worse than
> > > >>>> >the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
> case is being
> > > >>>> >dramatically overstated.
> >
> > I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
> > it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
> > billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
> > conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
> > fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
> > dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
> > cities as the ocean rises.
> >
>
> You've got conservatives all wrong then. Part of the reason conservatives
> tend towards opposing the global warming crowd is who that crowd is and what
> their aims are. Headline environmentalism has transformed over the last
> decade or so into an extremist and anti-capitalist point of view. Whatever
> the facts are regarding global warming, the extreme view pulls into it's
> agenda the shift of power from capitalism towards socialism.
And I suppose that if the 'environmentalists' advised against jumping
off the roof, the good conservatives would all dutifully line up to do
so?
The trouble with this whole mess is the media/public's propensity to
cast *everything* into a contest between two equivalently valid
opponents, pick one on the basis of some emotional impulse.
Environmentalism vs. corporatism, prolife vs prochoice, evolutionism
vs creationism, proBush vs. proSaddam, all are treated the same as the
choice of RedSox vs. Yankees. In fact, contrary to the news headlines
the other week, the decision to drop enforcement of the Clean Air laws
is not a 'blow to environmentalists'; it is, in fact, a blow to all
air-breathing organisms in the US.
> We have a fossil fueled based economy. Someday it will change and thank
> goodness for it too, but, God willing, it won't be on the extremist
> environmentalist schedule or terms.
Yes, as the decisions made regarding fish harvesting limits were not
made on the 'extremist environmentalist' (aka scientist) schedule or
terms, instead splitting the difference between the numbers the
scientists said were the max that would not seriously deplete the
fishery stocks, and the numbers the fishing industry said were
necessary economically. That's the American way, isn't it; compromist
between the two sides. And the result is, of course, that the
fisheries are now overfished, and the industry is in worse shape than
it would have been if the scientists' recommendations had been
followed in the first place.
> "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b5b4685f.0311220857.5c6200cf@posting.google.c om...
> > Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
> news:<olesrvsl6emilb2rgfbes8n605i91jdluj@4ax.com>. ..
> > > >>>> >To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure
> is worse than
> > > >>>> >the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
> case is being
> > > >>>> >dramatically overstated.
> >
> > I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
> > it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
> > billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
> > conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
> > fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
> > dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
> > cities as the ocean rises.
> >
>
> You've got conservatives all wrong then. Part of the reason conservatives
> tend towards opposing the global warming crowd is who that crowd is and what
> their aims are. Headline environmentalism has transformed over the last
> decade or so into an extremist and anti-capitalist point of view. Whatever
> the facts are regarding global warming, the extreme view pulls into it's
> agenda the shift of power from capitalism towards socialism.
And I suppose that if the 'environmentalists' advised against jumping
off the roof, the good conservatives would all dutifully line up to do
so?
The trouble with this whole mess is the media/public's propensity to
cast *everything* into a contest between two equivalently valid
opponents, pick one on the basis of some emotional impulse.
Environmentalism vs. corporatism, prolife vs prochoice, evolutionism
vs creationism, proBush vs. proSaddam, all are treated the same as the
choice of RedSox vs. Yankees. In fact, contrary to the news headlines
the other week, the decision to drop enforcement of the Clean Air laws
is not a 'blow to environmentalists'; it is, in fact, a blow to all
air-breathing organisms in the US.
> We have a fossil fueled based economy. Someday it will change and thank
> goodness for it too, but, God willing, it won't be on the extremist
> environmentalist schedule or terms.
Yes, as the decisions made regarding fish harvesting limits were not
made on the 'extremist environmentalist' (aka scientist) schedule or
terms, instead splitting the difference between the numbers the
scientists said were the max that would not seriously deplete the
fishery stocks, and the numbers the fishing industry said were
necessary economically. That's the American way, isn't it; compromist
between the two sides. And the result is, of course, that the
fisheries are now overfished, and the industry is in worse shape than
it would have been if the scientists' recommendations had been
followed in the first place.
#4969
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:<8T6wb.9987$Gj.1947@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b5b4685f.0311220857.5c6200cf@posting.google.c om...
> > Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
> news:<olesrvsl6emilb2rgfbes8n605i91jdluj@4ax.com>. ..
> > > >>>> >To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure
> is worse than
> > > >>>> >the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
> case is being
> > > >>>> >dramatically overstated.
> >
> > I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
> > it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
> > billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
> > conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
> > fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
> > dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
> > cities as the ocean rises.
> >
>
> You've got conservatives all wrong then. Part of the reason conservatives
> tend towards opposing the global warming crowd is who that crowd is and what
> their aims are. Headline environmentalism has transformed over the last
> decade or so into an extremist and anti-capitalist point of view. Whatever
> the facts are regarding global warming, the extreme view pulls into it's
> agenda the shift of power from capitalism towards socialism.
And I suppose that if the 'environmentalists' advised against jumping
off the roof, the good conservatives would all dutifully line up to do
so?
The trouble with this whole mess is the media/public's propensity to
cast *everything* into a contest between two equivalently valid
opponents, pick one on the basis of some emotional impulse.
Environmentalism vs. corporatism, prolife vs prochoice, evolutionism
vs creationism, proBush vs. proSaddam, all are treated the same as the
choice of RedSox vs. Yankees. In fact, contrary to the news headlines
the other week, the decision to drop enforcement of the Clean Air laws
is not a 'blow to environmentalists'; it is, in fact, a blow to all
air-breathing organisms in the US.
> We have a fossil fueled based economy. Someday it will change and thank
> goodness for it too, but, God willing, it won't be on the extremist
> environmentalist schedule or terms.
Yes, as the decisions made regarding fish harvesting limits were not
made on the 'extremist environmentalist' (aka scientist) schedule or
terms, instead splitting the difference between the numbers the
scientists said were the max that would not seriously deplete the
fishery stocks, and the numbers the fishing industry said were
necessary economically. That's the American way, isn't it; compromist
between the two sides. And the result is, of course, that the
fisheries are now overfished, and the industry is in worse shape than
it would have been if the scientists' recommendations had been
followed in the first place.
> "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b5b4685f.0311220857.5c6200cf@posting.google.c om...
> > Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
> news:<olesrvsl6emilb2rgfbes8n605i91jdluj@4ax.com>. ..
> > > >>>> >To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure
> is worse than
> > > >>>> >the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
> case is being
> > > >>>> >dramatically overstated.
> >
> > I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
> > it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
> > billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
> > conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
> > fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
> > dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
> > cities as the ocean rises.
> >
>
> You've got conservatives all wrong then. Part of the reason conservatives
> tend towards opposing the global warming crowd is who that crowd is and what
> their aims are. Headline environmentalism has transformed over the last
> decade or so into an extremist and anti-capitalist point of view. Whatever
> the facts are regarding global warming, the extreme view pulls into it's
> agenda the shift of power from capitalism towards socialism.
And I suppose that if the 'environmentalists' advised against jumping
off the roof, the good conservatives would all dutifully line up to do
so?
The trouble with this whole mess is the media/public's propensity to
cast *everything* into a contest between two equivalently valid
opponents, pick one on the basis of some emotional impulse.
Environmentalism vs. corporatism, prolife vs prochoice, evolutionism
vs creationism, proBush vs. proSaddam, all are treated the same as the
choice of RedSox vs. Yankees. In fact, contrary to the news headlines
the other week, the decision to drop enforcement of the Clean Air laws
is not a 'blow to environmentalists'; it is, in fact, a blow to all
air-breathing organisms in the US.
> We have a fossil fueled based economy. Someday it will change and thank
> goodness for it too, but, God willing, it won't be on the extremist
> environmentalist schedule or terms.
Yes, as the decisions made regarding fish harvesting limits were not
made on the 'extremist environmentalist' (aka scientist) schedule or
terms, instead splitting the difference between the numbers the
scientists said were the max that would not seriously deplete the
fishery stocks, and the numbers the fishing industry said were
necessary economically. That's the American way, isn't it; compromist
between the two sides. And the result is, of course, that the
fisheries are now overfished, and the industry is in worse shape than
it would have been if the scientists' recommendations had been
followed in the first place.
#4970
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<3np1sv414jbra53mffq0f4m0r9pjho31g9@4ax.com>. ..
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:31:46 -0700, "Jerry McG"
> <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>
> >> It's not a case of developing new energy technologies. I really wish it
> >were that simple. The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being
> >used to develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
> >these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away. What is
> >constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil fuels, with no
> >actual replacement technologies available. Obviously, this will cause a
> >major change in almost every aspect of our lifestyles.<
> >
> >Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle east,
> >if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
> >large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track. Radical environmentalists
> >have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
> >technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
> >answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor is
> >space available to deploy huge solar collectors.
> >
> >Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient, and
> >replacement of the internal combustion engine with fuel cells is not even in
> >the Model-T stages of development. Therefore, unless humanity is willing to
> >accept a massive economic upheaval conversion a slow conversion using bridge
> >technologies such as hybrids is the only viable path to follow. Naturally
> >the fanciful enviros will whine....
> >
> Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
> who screw up, not the technology).
> Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
Well, since we agree that people screw it up by making mistakes and
errors of judgement in the design or operation, I'll certainly listen
if you can come up with a way to have nuclear power implemented by
somebody other than people. However, I should warn you that training
chimps to run the plants will not be acceptable either. I was thinking
more of Vorlons or maybe Vulcans.
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:31:46 -0700, "Jerry McG"
> <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>
> >> It's not a case of developing new energy technologies. I really wish it
> >were that simple. The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being
> >used to develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
> >these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away. What is
> >constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil fuels, with no
> >actual replacement technologies available. Obviously, this will cause a
> >major change in almost every aspect of our lifestyles.<
> >
> >Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle east,
> >if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
> >large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track. Radical environmentalists
> >have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
> >technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
> >answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor is
> >space available to deploy huge solar collectors.
> >
> >Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient, and
> >replacement of the internal combustion engine with fuel cells is not even in
> >the Model-T stages of development. Therefore, unless humanity is willing to
> >accept a massive economic upheaval conversion a slow conversion using bridge
> >technologies such as hybrids is the only viable path to follow. Naturally
> >the fanciful enviros will whine....
> >
> Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
> who screw up, not the technology).
> Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
Well, since we agree that people screw it up by making mistakes and
errors of judgement in the design or operation, I'll certainly listen
if you can come up with a way to have nuclear power implemented by
somebody other than people. However, I should warn you that training
chimps to run the plants will not be acceptable either. I was thinking
more of Vorlons or maybe Vulcans.