From: Sancho Panza on

"Matthew Russotto" <russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:GuKdnXDdzcBXgljWnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net...
> In article <42hrr5dl5t240hm3gqtvohp5p3ri82djr4(a)4ax.com>,
> dgk <dgk(a)somewhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>Right, but the question is how to best deliver people where they want
>>to go with the least harmful impact on the environment. Is that a bad
>>goal?
>
> That's not a goal at all. Taken one way, it's an unsatisfiable set of
> constraints. Taken another way, it's an ambiguous one.
>
> If you want to both "BEST deliver people where they want to go", and
> "deliver people where they want to go with the least harmful impact on
> the environment", it's unsatisfiable. If you want to balance delivery
> with impact on the environment, it's ambiguous.
>
>>Hopefully electric cars are part of the solution, and the electricity
>>can be produced by a cleaner method than coal.
>
> Not likely. In the US, a state court just ruled that a nuke
> supplying 30% of the power to New York City has to shut down because
> its water output is too hot.

Not a court. It was the state's Department of Environmental Conservation.

> Now, it's possible to produce
> electricity with a minimum of conventional pollutants, and it's even
> possible to produce it with a minimum of CO2 (with a nuke). But you
> can't produce electricity without heat. The standards are
> impossible.


From: John David Galt on
Matthew Russotto wrote:
> Not likely. In the US, a state court just ruled that a nuke
> supplying 30% of the power to New York City has to shut down because
> its water output is too hot. Now, it's possible to produce
> electricity with a minimum of conventional pollutants, and it's even
> possible to produce it with a minimum of CO2 (with a nuke). But you
> can't produce electricity without heat. The standards are
> impossible.

If it were possible, the greens would find some other excuse to demand
shutdown. Their movement isn't really about saving the earth; it's about
destroying civilization because they hate humans.
From: ah on

"N8N" <njnagel(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:61f4d10e-3f5a-45ef-96e9-3fe38300f2d1(a)x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 8, 10:49 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy...(a)GrumpyvilleNOT.com>
wrote:
> dgk wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:35:52 -0700, "Stewart" <gorta...(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> <gl4...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:gl4317-0504102327440001(a)69-30-9-110.pxd.easystreet.com...
> >>> In article <68-dnfYeC5TuMyfWnZ2dnUVZ_oWdn...(a)giganews.com>, Grumpy
> >>> AuContraire <Grumpy...(a)GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> gl4...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>> In article <hpbj1e$m3...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "Stewart"
> >>>>> <gorta...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Left wing socialist alert!
>
> >>>>>> And to keep it on topic.....what type of Honda do you own?
>
> >>>>> Nah, we socialists only drive Volvo 240s and read
> >>> misc.transport.rail.americas.
> >>>>> (To which I am still trying to figure out why this thread is
> >>>>> posted).
>
> >>>> What???
>
> >>>> No Prius or Smaht Kahs???
>
> >>> Ha! Those are only driven by wanna-be socialists. Too much computer
> >>> technology, and made by corporations. The most advanced technology
> >>> allowed near the homes of true socialists are the products of the
> >>> Soviet
> >>> Diesel Computer Cooperative.
>
> >>> --
> >>> -Glennl
> >>> Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam, and most e-mail
> >>> sent to this address are simply lost in the vast mess.
> >> I like the all electrics to reduce "carbon footprint". plug 'em in to
> >> an outlet fed by coal burning power generation......
>
> > Right, but the question is how to best deliver people where they want
> > to go with the least harmful impact on the environment. Is that a bad
> > goal?
>
> Nope, not a bad goal at all but... Any big advance in technology will
> come from innovation from the private sector, not guv'ment mandate. It
> always has and always will. Guv'ment is nothing but a giant
> interference entity.
>
> > Hopefully electric cars are part of the solution, and the electricity
> > can be produced by a cleaner method than coal.
>
> Sure, a hundred nuke plants would be a great intermediate solution until
> new technologies can be developed. But no one wants such in "their"
> backyard.

Meh, I grew up with one in my backyard, or pretty close to it, and I
turned out just fine.

nate
No you didn't, you diddle wit' 'dem Studebakers...! :)

From: "WindsorFox [SS]>" on
ah wrote:
>> Nope, not a bad goal at all but... Any big advance in technology will
>> come from innovation from the private sector, not guv'ment mandate. It
>> always has and always will. Guv'ment is nothing but a giant
>> interference entity.
>>
>> > Hopefully electric cars are part of the solution, and the electricity
>> > can be produced by a cleaner method than coal.
>>
>> Sure, a hundred nuke plants would be a great intermediate solution until
>> new technologies can be developed. But no one wants such in "their"
>> backyard.
>
> Meh, I grew up with one in my backyard, or pretty close to it, and I
> turned out just fine.
>
> nate
> No you didn't, you diddle wit' 'dem Studebakers...! :)


So that soft, green glow has been around so long it doesn't even
keep you awake does it?

--
..



"You show me ONE poster who says you have even one part
per million of a good name, and I'll show you a sock." - Bill
"the Roadie" Carton
From: Grumpy AuContraire on
ah wrote:
>
> "N8N" <njnagel(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>


snip

>>
>> Sure, a hundred nuke plants would be a great intermediate solution until
>> new technologies can be developed. But no one wants such in "their"
>> backyard.
>
> Meh, I grew up with one in my backyard, or pretty close to it, and I
> turned out just fine.
>
> nate
> No you didn't, you diddle wit' 'dem Studebakers...! :)


Yeah, but I have lotsa company!

Ol' Honda Civics and Studebakers... Simple elegance..

JT