THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly
in [Cars]
|
Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Larry G on 9 Jul 2010 07:55 On Jul 9, 12:31 am, Rally2xs <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Jul 8, 6:36 pm, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > it is SOME of them's agenda... though... and it will add money to the > > cost. > > Everything an envirowacko dreams up adds to the cost.... not putting pollution into the environment costs money - but so does putting pollution into the environment. Want to have dioxin in all of our rivers or lead back in gasoline? > > > > > > Not sure about the expense of removing mercury from coal, if it is > > > indeed possible. But I'd be expecting that 80 cents per kilowatt hour > > > electric if they tried it. > > > not sure either.. will check... but more like a penny or two > > Probably more like bankrupting the coal plant, whiich would get > replaced with something REALLY expensive. according to one quick check from the EPA: " Cost estimates fall in a wide range. It is projected that the Hg removal capabilities projected in Table 3 would add no more than about 3 mills/kWh to the annualized cost of power production." http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/utility/hgwhitepaperfinal.pdf the most important thing is that the folks who are opposed don't care anyhow, right? > > > > > > Just don't eat so much fish. > > > it's in other things too guy... anything that eats off the ground may > > be accumulating it in their tissues. > > Still, I eat this food. it's kids guy.... how much is it worth to have a kid with lower IQs? > > I just don't think you realize how damaging their total effect is. > They're into stopping EVERYTHNG. They fortunately are not > universally successgful, but oivercoming them is expensive, and the > delays they cause are expensive, What if we had begun driklinh ANWR > 15 years ago? Would we have to be drilling in the gulf now? Stuff > like that - its all cumulative, and its wickedly damaging. they are not stop anything. It's a lack of support from the vast larger numbers of our population. the enviro-weenies are loud but very small in numbers. The rest of the country can outvote them anytime they want to but they can't agree. people who blame the weenies are refusing to face the realities and looking to blame > > > > it most harms young kids IQs > > How often? 1 in 10? 1 in 10,000? did you ever hear of the Mad hatter? It is well documented. It works like a pesticide and it does not break down... it accumulates... like other pesticides do that have been banned - for that reason. > > solar works on rootops, windows, and siding.. guy and no we're not > > running out of Gallium... give me a cite on that... > > It was yet another pending appocolypse that got real popular near the > end of last year. Correct? I dunno. When they actually mine the > last ounce, then we'll know. Here's one of the alarmist artiiclees: > > http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0806/ref.shtml attack of the blather butts.... > > > using 1/2 the energy per capita has not bankrupt the Europeans and > > Japanese has it? It's actually increased their productivity - no? > > I haven;'t heard anything about it increasing productivity, and of > course that just doesn''t make sense. Bricks without straw comes to > mind - you remove a portion of the stuff necessary to do industry - > energy - and productivity is supposed to go up??? you create the same number of widgets with 1/2 the energy ..is not productive? if you produced the same number of widgets with 1/2 the labor.. that would not be productive? you produce the same number of widgets with 1/2 the resources? > > > it's how you calculate the total cost of way you pay.. the subsidy is > > hidden, not recognized by many. There is a HUGE subsidy for Nuke Power > > - you know because we insist on much more dangerous designs than those > > used in Europe... in part because we agree to subsidize the potential > > damage that might result. The less dangerous designs cost more > > initially but don't need the insurance subsidy. > > Dunno anything about particularly dangerous designs. We have > containment domes where lots of others don't. And I don't carre what > they build, as long as it will produce some electricity efficiently. Europe uses Pebble reactors that cannot "run away".. but they cost more to build and operate > > > You're pay extra to deploy less save Nukes - which, in turn, loses > > public support. If we went with safer designs like they use in Europe > > - we'd have more public support but the cost of the electricity would > > be higher than coal. > > Public suppport? I think the vast majoority supports it, just the > NMBYs and the "Dont build anything anywhere" bunch are against it, > plus the usual agitators out with their "no nukes" chants and signs. > I note that the chants and signs don't say to not build this kind of > nuke or that kind of nuke, they are just the same, mindless bunch that > got scared by the movie "Them" and now are afraid of anything nuclear. no. you'd be wrong. If the public really did want it in strong enough numbers, it would get enough yes votes in the congress and presidency. don't believe it? Have one major Nuke Power incident and see how quick those who say they want it - change their minds... public support for Nukes is weak .. and influenced by Nuclear "events". > > > > I'm not choosing to subsidize anything. I'll pay for the product. > > > by demanding coal and less safe NUKES, > > I want coal ('cuz the other alterantives are worse, or don't work), > and ANY kind of nuke they can build, other than the Chernobyl kind. > Andd don't et the Russkies operate any of 'em. I'm in favor of the pebble type reactors but like I said.. the American public still has a phobia about it.. less than before..but still too many for strong support which is what you need for the politicians to act. > > > you empower the lobby guys who > > blather on about "clean" coal and nukes when coal is not and the NUKES > > are not as safe as they should be. > > The envirowackos have to make up their minds and choose something they > like and THAT WORKS. As long as they are unviable, we have no choice > but to ignorre them. We're not going to live in caves with no heating > and no coooling and no transportation just to make them happy. we agree.. that's my frustration with them.. they seem to oppose virtually every option except the ones that only work if we all cut our energy use to 1/2. However, I'll again point out that the American people themselves are split and not sure what they really want. By the way - there is no "cave". Houses can be built right now that are energy zero. http://www.toolbase.org/Home-Building-Topics/zero-energy-homes/zero-energy-home-project the problem is that you have to pay up front to get them and people won't do that. It's much like a Fluorescent CF bulb that costs 7 times an incandescent but lasts 10 times as long. > > >>>> Here, its drive, drive, drive and there's just not > > > >> a D thing you can do about it except sit home and watch TV. > > > > >Europe has > > They don't have that far to go in the 1st place. Their countries are > smaller. they have urban centers like we do... you know with the exurbs around them like we do. Their countries while smaller are a lot like our states where each state has urban centers and rural. more excuses.. > > And somewhere thru this mess I remember reading you said that solar > works on rooftops and so forth. No, no, no,. We're looking for base- > load clean electricity. That's what 100% solar or 100% wind or 100% > geo or a combination of them is all about. No fossile fuel should be > burned. But you can't do them without storage. And you can't build > ANY of those to do the base load, and therefore not burn fossilee > fuels at all, any time soon. Nukes would be the quickest to buld, but > in the quantitiees we need them to be able to shut down the fossile > plants, it'd be decades. Solar and Wind save your baseload guy. They allow you to use Natural Gas Peaker plants to add to the base when Solar/Wind are not doing... You use smart meters to charge people what it costs to produce peak power - which is about 7 times as much as non-peak power. Then people will pay attention to how they use it. You won't be running your water heater when it cost 70 cents a KW to do it and that's the problem right now with the base and peak loads. How much do you really want to know about the problem and work for reasonable solutions and how much do you not care and just want to maintain the status quo?
From: Rich Piehl on 9 Jul 2010 12:34 On 7/9/2010 6:55 AM, Larry G wrote: > On Jul 9, 12:31 am, Rally2xs<rally...(a)att.net> wrote: >> On Jul 8, 6:36 pm, Larry G<gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> it is SOME of them's agenda... though... and it will add money to the >>> cost. >> >> Everything an envirowacko dreams up adds to the cost.... > > not putting pollution into the environment costs money - but so does > putting pollution into the environment. > > Want to have dioxin in all of our rivers or lead back in gasoline? >> >> >> >>>> Not sure about the expense of removing mercury from coal, if it is >>>> indeed possible. But I'd be expecting that 80 cents per kilowatt hour >>>> electric if they tried it. >> >>> not sure either.. will check... but more like a penny or two >> >> Probably more like bankrupting the coal plant, whiich would get >> replaced with something REALLY expensive. > > according to one quick check from the EPA: " Cost estimates fall in a > wide range. It is projected that the Hg removal capabilities projected > in Table 3 would add no more than about 3 mills/kWh to the annualized > cost of power production." > > http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/utility/hgwhitepaperfinal.pdf > > the most important thing is that the folks who are opposed don't care > anyhow, right? >> >> >> >>>> Just don't eat so much fish. >> >>> it's in other things too guy... anything that eats off the ground may >>> be accumulating it in their tissues. >> >> Still, I eat this food. > > it's kids guy.... how much is it worth to have a kid with lower IQs? How many children die automobile accidents each year, or have permanent injuries as a result of them. By your logic cars should be banned. Same with children riding bicycles. Children are injured by house household cleaners and other chemicals. Better ban those. Children drown in bathtubs and swimming pools. Better ban those. Children get asphyxiated in houses with furnaces that leak carbon monoxide. Better ban furnaces. For that matter kids die and are injured in house fires. Better ban houses and fire. It's kids Larry. How much is it worth to save the life of a child, or prevent them from being injured? Your argument makes just as much sense as mine.
From: Larry G on 9 Jul 2010 12:43 On Jul 9, 12:34 pm, Rich Piehl <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: > On 7/9/2010 6:55 AM, Larry G wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 12:31 am, Rally2xs<rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > >> On Jul 8, 6:36 pm, Larry G<gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> it is SOME of them's agenda... though... and it will add money to the > >>> cost. > > >> Everything an envirowacko dreams up adds to the cost.... > > > not putting pollution into the environment costs money - but so does > > putting pollution into the environment. > > > Want to have dioxin in all of our rivers or lead back in gasoline? > > >>>> Not sure about the expense of removing mercury from coal, if it is > >>>> indeed possible. But I'd be expecting that 80 cents per kilowatt hour > >>>> electric if they tried it. > > >>> not sure either.. will check... but more like a penny or two > > >> Probably more like bankrupting the coal plant, whiich would get > >> replaced with something REALLY expensive. > > > according to one quick check from the EPA: " Cost estimates fall in a > > wide range. It is projected that the Hg removal capabilities projected > > in Table 3 would add no more than about 3 mills/kWh to the annualized > > cost of power production." > > >http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/utility/hgwhitepaperfinal.pdf > > > the most important thing is that the folks who are opposed don't care > > anyhow, right? > > >>>> Just don't eat so much fish. > > >>> it's in other things too guy... anything that eats off the ground may > >>> be accumulating it in their tissues. > > >> Still, I eat this food. > > > it's kids guy.... how much is it worth to have a kid with lower IQs? > > How many children die automobile accidents each year, or have permanent > injuries as a result of them. By your logic cars should be banned. > Same with children riding bicycles. Children are injured by house > household cleaners and other chemicals. Better ban those. Children > drown in bathtubs and swimming pools. Better ban those. Children get > asphyxiated in houses with furnaces that leak carbon monoxide. Better > ban furnaces. For that matter kids die and are injured in house fires. > Better ban houses and fire. > > It's kids Larry. How much is it worth to save the life of a child, or > prevent them from being injured? > > Your argument makes just as much sense as mine. Hey Rich - you may have noticed just how much stuff that injures kids has been banned.... already.. eh? It's not only kids - with Mercury. It bio-accumulates and spreads and becomes more concentrated in the environment... affecting pregnant women and most of the critters in the river as well as pasture animals that we use for food - It's gets into feed also that is fed to poultry.... It's not like a chronic pollution like too much nutrients in the river or even acid rain. It's like a pesticide that does not degrade.... most of which that have been used on crops and lawns , etc have been either banned or very severely restricted. If something hurts KIDS guy.. it means it hurts all humans but we see it first in the kids... you need to get more environmental "smarts"... It's one thing to be opposed - for cause - another to not know the issue...
From: Beam Me Up Scotty on 9 Jul 2010 13:19 > On 7/9/2010 6:55 AM, Larry G wrote: >> On Jul 9, 12:31 am, Rally2xs<rally...(a)att.net> wrote: >>> On Jul 8, 6:36 pm, Larry G<gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>> it is SOME of them's agenda... though... and it will add money to the >>>> cost. >>> >>> Everything an envirowacko dreams up adds to the cost.... >> >> not putting pollution into the environment costs money - but so does >> putting pollution into the environment. >> >> Want to have dioxin in all of our rivers or lead back in gasoline? >>> >>> >>> >>>>> Not sure about the expense of removing mercury from coal, if it is >>>>> indeed possible. But I'd be expecting that 80 cents per kilowatt hour >>>>> electric if they tried it. >>> >>>> not sure either.. will check... but more like a penny or two >>> >>> Probably more like bankrupting the coal plant, whiich would get >>> replaced with something REALLY expensive. >> >> according to one quick check from the EPA: " Cost estimates fall in a >> wide range. It is projected that the Hg removal capabilities projected >> in Table 3 would add no more than about 3 mills/kWh to the annualized >> cost of power production." >> >> http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/utility/hgwhitepaperfinal.pdf >> >> the most important thing is that the folks who are opposed don't care >> anyhow, right? >>> >>> >>> >>>>> Just don't eat so much fish. >>> >>>> it's in other things too guy... anything that eats off the ground may >>>> be accumulating it in their tissues. >>> >>> Still, I eat this food. >> >> it's kids guy.... how much is it worth to have a kid with lower IQs? Why do you assume that it's the food, I see the Government education and preschool as the cause.
From: Rich Piehl on 9 Jul 2010 14:20
On 7/9/2010 11:43 AM, Larry G wrote: > On Jul 9, 12:34 pm, Rich Piehl > <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: >> On 7/9/2010 6:55 AM, Larry G wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 9, 12:31 am, Rally2xs<rally...(a)att.net> wrote: >>>> On Jul 8, 6:36 pm, Larry G<gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> it is SOME of them's agenda... though... and it will add money to the >>>>> cost. >> >>>> Everything an envirowacko dreams up adds to the cost.... >> >>> not putting pollution into the environment costs money - but so does >>> putting pollution into the environment. >> >>> Want to have dioxin in all of our rivers or lead back in gasoline? >> >>>>>> Not sure about the expense of removing mercury from coal, if it is >>>>>> indeed possible. But I'd be expecting that 80 cents per kilowatt hour >>>>>> electric if they tried it. >> >>>>> not sure either.. will check... but more like a penny or two >> >>>> Probably more like bankrupting the coal plant, whiich would get >>>> replaced with something REALLY expensive. >> >>> according to one quick check from the EPA: " Cost estimates fall in a >>> wide range. It is projected that the Hg removal capabilities projected >>> in Table 3 would add no more than about 3 mills/kWh to the annualized >>> cost of power production." >> >>> http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/utility/hgwhitepaperfinal.pdf >> >>> the most important thing is that the folks who are opposed don't care >>> anyhow, right? >> >>>>>> Just don't eat so much fish. >> >>>>> it's in other things too guy... anything that eats off the ground may >>>>> be accumulating it in their tissues. >> >>>> Still, I eat this food. >> >>> it's kids guy.... how much is it worth to have a kid with lower IQs? >> >> How many children die automobile accidents each year, or have permanent >> injuries as a result of them. By your logic cars should be banned. >> Same with children riding bicycles. Children are injured by house >> household cleaners and other chemicals. Better ban those. Children >> drown in bathtubs and swimming pools. Better ban those. Children get >> asphyxiated in houses with furnaces that leak carbon monoxide. Better >> ban furnaces. For that matter kids die and are injured in house fires. >> Better ban houses and fire. >> >> It's kids Larry. How much is it worth to save the life of a child, or >> prevent them from being injured? >> >> Your argument makes just as much sense as mine. > > Hey Rich - you may have noticed just how much stuff that injures kids > has been banned.... already.. eh? > > It's not only kids - with Mercury. It bio-accumulates and spreads and > becomes more concentrated in the environment... affecting pregnant > women and most of the critters in the river as well as pasture animals > that we use for food - It's gets into feed also that is fed to > poultry.... > > It's not like a chronic pollution like too much nutrients in the river > or even acid rain. It's like a pesticide that does not degrade.... > most of which that have been used on crops and lawns , etc have been > either banned or very severely restricted. > > If something hurts KIDS guy.. it means it hurts all humans but we see > it first in the kids... you need to get more environmental > "smarts"... > > It's one thing to be opposed - for cause - another to not know the > issue... What difference does it whether it is instantaneous or cumulative? Dead is dead. Maimed is maimed. Everything on my list hurts and kills humans, adults and children, alike too. You need to be more intellectually honest. |