THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Dave Head on 8 Jul 2010 16:55 On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 05:04:28 -0700 (PDT), Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >your energy usage - on average - guy. Even Europeans use energy to go >on vacation - they just don't use a 15mpg behemoth... like many of us >do.... Mine's about 22. Subaru WRX. Can't change that for rallies, as it is a component in winning, which we do. >again... how much weight are you moving around to carry your 150-200 >lb body? Abt. 3000 lbs I think. What can I do about it? I need the WRX to be successful in the rallies. I have one other car I put about 2000 miles a year on, a 98 Jeep Cherokee, that I take hunting and then trips to the landfill. Get yet ANOTHER car? Yeah, I'd like to have a Chevy Volt. $35K? Prolly not happening. Want it... yeah... but I'd still have to keep the WRX for winning rallies. >Most of us are pushing 3000-4000 lbs worth of metal while they push >about half that about on average - and they tend to NOT drive SOLO to/ >from work. I found a tiny, tiny Ford Fiesta that is reputed for 68 mpg, and yeah, its something like 600 lbs less than 3K. Big whoop, it ain't marketed here. If it is, I won't be surprised if the air bags, all the associated electronics with that, and whatever else the envirowackos wanna lay on it won't bring it up to 3000 lbs and the mileage down to the low 30's. And, it definitely WILL NOT be winning rallies - it will likely have severe problems climbing the Appalacian mountains I'm going to be travesing about 5 hours from now. And as for car pooling, forget about it. I'm not riding with someone and being stranded at work (I eat out every day, one of the great reasons for that is to get the F out of the shop, and read my paper ALONE), and I'm not having anyone else riding in my car but my friends. I'm a loner, always have been, always will be. And besides that, if I decide to go int work at 6 AM, like today, I will. If I decide to go in at 9, I will. If I decide to go home an hour early, or stay and work an hour late, I will. >again you are not look at average use. it's average per-capita use... >and recognizing that there is a difference between the activities you >do - and your overall use that comes not from vacations or road >rallies or boundary water canoeing but from daily to/from work driving >and the size of house that you are heating/cooling. As I said, I'd have to trash a whale of a lot of stuff I've accumulated in order to move into something smaller. That's not happeing, either. I _will_ build a superefficient one, (this one is pretty efficient - only $95 for latest electric bill, $35 the month before, $45 the month before that...) because I think the envirowackos are going to get the electric boosted from 8 cents per KwH to 80, if they can. 10 years from now, or 20, I do want to still be paying less than $100 for electric. To/from work driving is going to stay the same, for a couple years, then fall to zero after I retire. But if it wasn't, then I'd still be driving 30 miles a day round trip, still alone, still in my WRX. Can't afford a rollerskate car right now. Maybe after I retire. >Those two are the two that we as a country on average use more energy >on. >> >> Then there's the trip to the Dayton Hamvention every year, 550 miles >> one way, plus the side-trip to Cedar Point Amusement Park, another 200 >> miles or so. �I don't go there, and I don't get to see my good friend >> that flies in from San Diego. �Might never get to see him again. > >how you got to see your good friend might vary depending on how much >you had to pay for fuel, eh? If I CAN, I'll do it. He'll probably stop buying plane tickets to Ohio before I stop driving to Ohio. >> Half of what I use now? �Not happening. �Either I pretty much wreck my >> recreation, or I keep driving. > >you can do everything you do now and use less energy..... Absolutely cannot. Can afford 1 car for now, and it has to be something muscle in order to be successful at rallying. We don't attain high speeds doing that, but the car has to be "quick" and it has to corner. The only thing I know is what I got. >the electricity is mercury laden because the mercury is embedded in >the coal and to remove more of it would require more expensive >processes to capture it, which in turn would make electricity more >expensive. In other words, you would have to pay to have the mercury >removed at the point it is generated rather than have it released and >filter down from the atmosphere. It is not the envirowackos agenda to remove mercury from coal. It is their agenda to get coal fired plants shut down. Of course, they don't have an alternative to what would happen, but they still want them shut down. 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. Just don't eat so much fish. >all I'm asking you to do here - is to recognize the reality of this >instead of blowing it off and pretending it's not a problem and/or >blaming enviro-weenies. I'll blame the enviro-weenies 25 hours a day. If they weren't so 'round the bend, we could be rid of 100% of the coal effluents, because we wouldn't be burning any. We'd be generating all our electric wth nukes. >The truth is that you and I get "cheaper" electricity because we don't >remove the mercury and it, in turn, rains down on the landscape and >pollutes the rivers with bio-persistent forms that get into the food >web which then makes the food dangerous to eat. That's a reality - not >a communist prank. Its not that dangerous - I'm not dead yet, and I'm 63. Been eating American food all my life. >Nuke Power would cost as much as solar if we did not subsidize the >insurance costs. In other words we would build solar for the same >price - which would be substantially higher. We can't build THAT much solar at ANY price. We're going to run out of Gallium, for one thing. Solar thermal works, but an array of solar thermal in the desert southwest, because that's where it works the best, would require vast power grid improvements, and then storage for electricity overnight. High pressure (>4000 psi) caves and abandoned miles have been proposed to store the energy overnight. Scientific American, I think it was Jan 2008, proposed this. They thought, with also a significant solar cell efficiency rise, that it would take until the year 2100 to build. We need coal now, and we need to NOT bankrupt the USA with over-done pollution controls. >I'm loving your diatribe against communism as you talk about why we >should subsidize for the "good of the people". eh? Subsidize? That mean I pay it in taxes for the gov't to give it to industry, or I pay it to the industry directly for the price of their product? Either way, who is paying? >> >The fact is - that if you had to actually pay the true cost of energy >> >and it was not subsidized, >> >> Subsidized from where? �Where does the money come from that subsidizes >> anything? �Are the Australians paying for our subsidy? �The Brits? >> Maybe Isreal is footing the bill! �NO, the "subsidy" is coming from >> the US gov't, so the people are paying it anyway, because the US gov't >> gets all its money from the people. �Even if they get it from >> corporate taxes, those corporations get their money from sales of >> their products, so that ultimately, WE still pay those taxes. �The >> corporations just collect them. > > you're subsidizing coal and nukes but not solar - why? I'm not choosing to subsidize anything. I'll pay for the product. >> No, those energy prices are the way they are because of European taxes >> that are the way they are to try to pay for all their socialism, as >> well as pointedly discouraging people from using gasoline or any >> energy. �They have to use some, but its good that their countries are >> about the size of a 418 mile circle, 'cuz they'd go broke trying to do >> things in the USA. �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 stricter pollution restrictions and do not subsidize nukes European diesels operate all over their continent, but can't be imported becuse they don't meet US pollution regulations. Who as the most envirowacko rules again? France is 80% nuke now, right? Or did they get it to 100%? >- that's why their power costs more. and because it costs more, people >find ways to use less. People live deprived compared to Americans. If they can't afford a performance oriented car like mine with AWD and to run it as a hobby over 30,000 miles a year, then they have less recreational opportunity than I do. >> >and then you would find a way (like they >> >did) to cut your use... >> >> Just told you how I would have to cut my energy usage - I would have >> to give up a lifeltime hobby. > >bullfeathers and a flimsy excuse to boot But you can't figure out how to get a 0-60 car of less than 6 seconds and all wheel drive that corners like its on rails to as many different road rallies as I go to, AND go back and forth to work every day, AND go to the gym and/or the movie in town another 40 mile round trip often enough to do any good, etc. Its easy to say bullfeathers, but you can't do that without "living low", or otherwise living a relatively deprived life compared to what I have now. Again, I'd have to quit my hobby. There's just no other way. >if each power source had to meet a general standard for pollution and >insurance, coal and nukes might well cost as much as solar/wind. But you would still have to build them, because both of those are impractical at any price. The storage of electricity for both overnight and for when the wind isn't blowing kills the whole thing. And it'd take decades to build out to usablitity with any known storage right now. >The subsidy essentially hides the true cost of the energy. I'm paying the subsidy anyway, in my taxes. That's where the $$$ comes from. >In a free country, you are always free to use as much energy - as you >are willing to pay for but you are not entitled to a subsidy so that >your use is less costly than it would be. It costs more in taxes or it costs more in product. Take your pick. Either way, I'm going rallying starting within the hour. >And if energy cost you more - you'd find ways to use less. I already have. There isn't a light around here that I use regularly that isn't CF. Some incandescent are hiding in sockets I rarely turn on, but the most-used ones are CF, even the garage lights. I have an incandescent-equivalent 1000 watts of light in that relatively large garage, and its only about 200 watts or so for-real. But anything to do with the car is a non-starter - I need THAT car, period, or one better, but that one was about $24K. It was why I bought it. No Porsche here, no SHO Mustang, none of the "pretty" showy fast cars in the $30K - $50K range. This is the best I can do for now. The house will be the concentration point in the future, but I can't gain much. Geothermal heat pump will obsolete the need for oil heat or gas heat. Best I can do. But the car stays what the car is.
From: Larry G on 8 Jul 2010 18:36 On Jul 8, 4:55 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 05:04:28 -0700 (PDT), Larry G > > <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >your energy usage - on average - guy. Even Europeans use energy to go > >on vacation - they just don't use a 15mpg behemoth... like many of us > >do.... > > Mine's about 22. Subaru WRX. Can't change that for rallies, as it is > a component in winning, which we do. > > >again... how much weight are you moving around to carry your 150-200 > >lb body? > > Abt. 3000 lbs I think. What can I do about it? I need the WRX to be > successful in the rallies. I have one other car I put about 2000 > miles a year on, a 98 Jeep Cherokee, that I take hunting and then > trips to the landfill. Get yet ANOTHER car? Yeah, I'd like to have a > Chevy Volt. $35K? Prolly not happening. Want it... yeah... but I'd > still have to keep the WRX for winning rallies. > > >Most of us are pushing 3000-4000 lbs worth of metal while they push > >about half that about on average - and they tend to NOT drive SOLO to/ > >from work. > > I found a tiny, tiny Ford Fiesta that is reputed for 68 mpg, and yeah, > its something like 600 lbs less than 3K. Big whoop, it ain't marketed > here. If it is, I won't be surprised if the air bags, all the > associated electronics with that, and whatever else the envirowackos > wanna lay on it won't bring it up to 3000 lbs and the mileage down to > the low 30's. And, it definitely WILL NOT be winning rallies - it > will likely have severe problems climbing the Appalacian mountains I'm > going to be travesing about 5 hours from now. > > And as for car pooling, forget about it. I'm not riding with someone > and being stranded at work (I eat out every day, one of the great > reasons for that is to get the F out of the shop, and read my paper > ALONE), and I'm not having anyone else riding in my car but my > friends. I'm a loner, always have been, always will be. And besides > that, if I decide to go int work at 6 AM, like today, I will. If I > decide to go in at 9, I will. If I decide to go home an hour early, > or stay and work an hour late, I will. > > >again you are not look at average use. it's average per-capita use... > >and recognizing that there is a difference between the activities you > >do - and your overall use that comes not from vacations or road > >rallies or boundary water canoeing but from daily to/from work driving > >and the size of house that you are heating/cooling. > > As I said, I'd have to trash a whale of a lot of stuff I've > accumulated in order to move into something smaller. That's not > happeing, either. I _will_ build a superefficient one, (this one is > pretty efficient - only $95 for latest electric bill, $35 the month > before, $45 the month before that...) because I think the envirowackos > are going to get the electric boosted from 8 cents per KwH to 80, if > they can. 10 years from now, or 20, I do want to still be paying less > than $100 for electric. > > To/from work driving is going to stay the same, for a couple years, > then fall to zero after I retire. But if it wasn't, then I'd still be > driving 30 miles a day round trip, still alone, still in my WRX. Can't > afford a rollerskate car right now. Maybe after I retire. > > >Those two are the two that we as a country on average use more energy > >on. > > >> Then there's the trip to the Dayton Hamvention every year, 550 miles > >> one way, plus the side-trip to Cedar Point Amusement Park, another 200 > >> miles or so. I don't go there, and I don't get to see my good friend > >> that flies in from San Diego. Might never get to see him again. > > >how you got to see your good friend might vary depending on how much > >you had to pay for fuel, eh? > > If I CAN, I'll do it. He'll probably stop buying plane tickets to > Ohio before I stop driving to Ohio. > > >> Half of what I use now? Not happening. Either I pretty much wreck my > >> recreation, or I keep driving. > > >you can do everything you do now and use less energy..... > > Absolutely cannot. Can afford 1 car for now, and it has to be > something muscle in order to be successful at rallying. We don't > attain high speeds doing that, but the car has to be "quick" and it > has to corner. The only thing I know is what I got. > > >the electricity is mercury laden because the mercury is embedded in > >the coal and to remove more of it would require more expensive > >processes to capture it, which in turn would make electricity more > >expensive. In other words, you would have to pay to have the mercury > >removed at the point it is generated rather than have it released and > >filter down from the atmosphere. > > It is not the envirowackos agenda to remove mercury from coal. It is > their agenda to get coal fired plants shut down. Of course, they > don't have an alternative to what would happen, but they still want > them shut down. it is SOME of them's agenda... though... and it will add money to the cost. > > 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 > > 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. > > >all I'm asking you to do here - is to recognize the reality of this > >instead of blowing it off and pretending it's not a problem and/or > >blaming enviro-weenies. > > I'll blame the enviro-weenies 25 hours a day. If they weren't so > 'round the bend, we could be rid of 100% of the coal effluents, > because we wouldn't be burning any. We'd be generating all our > electric wth nukes. I'm not particularly thrilled with the enviro-weenies myself but you're using them as a whipping boy to excuse your own lack of responsibility. > > >The truth is that you and I get "cheaper" electricity because we don't > >remove the mercury and it, in turn, rains down on the landscape and > >pollutes the rivers with bio-persistent forms that get into the food > >web which then makes the food dangerous to eat. That's a reality - not > >a communist prank. > > Its not that dangerous - I'm not dead yet, and I'm 63. Been eating > American food all my life. it most harms young kids IQs > > >Nuke Power would cost as much as solar if we did not subsidize the > >insurance costs. In other words we would build solar for the same > >price - which would be substantially higher. > > We can't build THAT much solar at ANY price. We're going to run out > of Gallium, for one thing. Solar thermal works, but an array of solar > thermal in the desert southwest, because that's where it works the > best, would require vast power grid improvements, and then storage for > electricity overnight. High pressure (>4000 psi) caves and abandoned > miles have been proposed to store the energy overnight. Scientific > American, I think it was Jan 2008, proposed this. They thought, with > also a significant solar cell efficiency rise, that it would take > until the year 2100 to build. We need coal now, and we need to NOT > bankrupt the USA with over-done pollution controls. solar works on rootops, windows, and siding.. guy and no we're not running out of Gallium... give me a cite on that... using 1/2 the energy per capita has not bankrupt the Europeans and Japanese has it? It's actually increased their productivity - no? > > >I'm loving your diatribe against communism as you talk about why we > >should subsidize for the "good of the people". eh? > > Subsidize? That mean I pay it in taxes for the gov't to give it to > industry, or I pay it to the industry directly for the price of their > product? Either way, who is paying? 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. 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. > > >> >The fact is - that if you had to actually pay the true cost of energy > >> >and it was not subsidized, > > >> Subsidized from where? Where does the money come from that subsidizes > >> anything? Are the Australians paying for our subsidy? The Brits? > >> Maybe Isreal is footing the bill! NO, the "subsidy" is coming from > >> the US gov't, so the people are paying it anyway, because the US gov't > >> gets all its money from the people. Even if they get it from > >> corporate taxes, those corporations get their money from sales of > >> their products, so that ultimately, WE still pay those taxes. The > >> corporations just collect them. > > > you're subsidizing coal and nukes but not solar - why? > > I'm not choosing to subsidize anything. I'll pay for the product. by demanding coal and less safe NUKES, 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. > > >> No, those energy prices are the way they are because of European taxes > >> that are the way they are to try to pay for all their socialism, as > >> well as pointedly discouraging people from using gasoline or any > >> energy. They have to use some, but its good that their countries are > >> about the size of a 418 mile circle, 'cuz they'd go broke trying to do > >> things in the USA. 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 stricter pollution restrictions and do not subsidize nukes > > European diesels operate all over their continent, but can't be > imported becuse they don't meet US pollution regulations. Who as the > most envirowacko rules again? was not aware they had dirtier diesels.. have a cite? > > France is 80% nuke now, right? Or did they get it to 100%? see above > > >- that's why their power costs more. and because it costs more, people > >find ways to use less. > > People live deprived compared to Americans. If they can't afford a > performance oriented car like mine with AWD and to run it as a hobby > over 30,000 miles a year, then they have less recreational opportunity > than I do. that's bull ... in your own self-rationalizing mind... wanna back up a notch and see the world ? > > >> >and then you would find a way (like they > >> >did) to cut your use... > > >> Just told you how I would have to cut my energy usage - I would have > >> to give up a lifeltime hobby. > > >bullfeathers and a flimsy excuse to boot > > But you can't figure out how to get a 0-60 car of less than 6 seconds > and all wheel drive that corners like its on rails to as many > different road rallies as I go to, AND go back and forth to work every > day, AND go to the gym and/or the movie in town another 40 mile round > trip often enough to do any good, etc. Its easy to say bullfeathers, > but you can't do that without "living low", or otherwise living a > relatively deprived life compared to what I have now. Again, I'd have > to quit my hobby. There's just no other way. I admire your love affair(s). > > >if each power source had to meet a general standard for pollution and > >insurance, coal and nukes might well cost as much as solar/wind. > > But you would still have to build them, because both of those are > impractical at any price. The storage of electricity for both > overnight and for when the wind isn't blowing kills the whole thing. > And it'd take decades to build out to usablitity with any known > storage right now. wrong. you still need the base loads but you top it off with wind - when you can and rely on the conventional for other times. The point of solar/wind is to integrate them in where they can be - so we do not have to build MORE polluting plants. Storage is not the answer.. I agree with that. > > >The subsidy essentially hides the true cost of the energy.
From: bugo on 8 Jul 2010 23:33 "Dave Head" <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote in message news:593b36hq402gjuplldo7s7lqa963goue00(a)4ax.com... > On 08 Jul 2010 05:46:48 GMT, Otto Yamamoto <steve(a)yamamoto.cc> wrote: > >>On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 13:21:59 -0400, Dave Head wrote: >> >>> On 07 Jul 2010 11:38:22 GMT, Otto Yamamoto <steve(a)yamamoto.cc> wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 06:20:19 -0400, Dave Head wrote: >>>> >>>>> Factcheck ain't that factual... >>>> >>>>When it appears to oppose your point of view. >>> >>> Read the rebuttal, see what YOU think. I mean, when FactCheck uses >>> studies that don't actually represent the Fair Tax, and that study >>> doesn't even take into account the repeal of the payroll taxes that the >>> Fair Tax calls for, and for which are some of the largest tax bites for >>> low to middle income people, then how credible are they? >>> >> >>From the 'Sources': Boortz, Neal and John Linder. The FairTax Book. New >>York: Harper Collins, 2005. That kinda blows yr contention out re the >>study not using sources that actually represent the fair tax. > > FactCheck wasn't using the Boortz/Linder book. They were using a > study that didn't represent the Fair Tax. It substituted some other > scheme that didn't take into account the repeal of the payroll taxes. All the so-called "Fair" Tax would do is make cheap billionaires pay WAY less in taxes than they do already. You Fair Tax kooks are entertaining.
From: Rally2xs on 8 Jul 2010 23:58 On Jul 8, 11:33 pm, "bugo" <wat...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > "Dave Head" <rally...(a)att.net> wrote in message > > news:593b36hq402gjuplldo7s7lqa963goue00(a)4ax.com... > > > > > > > On 08 Jul 2010 05:46:48 GMT, Otto Yamamoto <st...(a)yamamoto.cc> wrote: > > >>On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 13:21:59 -0400, Dave Head wrote: > > >>> On 07 Jul 2010 11:38:22 GMT, Otto Yamamoto <st...(a)yamamoto.cc> wrote: > > >>>>On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 06:20:19 -0400, Dave Head wrote: > > >>>>> Factcheck ain't that factual... > > >>>>When it appears to oppose your point of view. > > >>> Read the rebuttal, see what YOU think. I mean, when FactCheck uses > >>> studies that don't actually represent the Fair Tax, and that study > >>> doesn't even take into account the repeal of the payroll taxes that the > >>> Fair Tax calls for, and for which are some of the largest tax bites for > >>> low to middle income people, then how credible are they? > > >>From the 'Sources': Boortz, Neal and John Linder. The FairTax Book. New > >>York: Harper Collins, 2005. That kinda blows yr contention out re the > >>study not using sources that actually represent the fair tax. > > > FactCheck wasn't using the Boortz/Linder book. They were using a > > study that didn't represent the Fair Tax. It substituted some other > > scheme that didn't take into account the repeal of the payroll taxes. > > All the so-called "Fair" Tax would do is make cheap billionaires pay WAY > less in taxes than they do already. You Fair Tax kooks are entertaining.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Makes _ME_ pay less taxes and I make <$100K. Actually, EVERYBODY that's paying the taxes that they actually owe would pay less. Its the cheats that will end up getting nailed.
From: Rally2xs on 9 Jul 2010 00:31
On Jul 8, 6:36 pm, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > It is not the envirowackos agenda to remove mercury from coal. It is > > their agenda to get coal fired plants shut down. Of course, they > > don't have an alternative to what would happen, but they still want > > them shut down. > > 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 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. > > > 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. > > >all I'm asking you to do here - is to recognize the reality of this > > >instead of blowing it off and pretending it's not a problem and/or > > >blaming enviro-weenies. > > > I'll blame the enviro-weenies 25 hours a day. If they weren't so > > 'round the bend, we could be rid of 100% of the coal effluents, > > because we wouldn't be burning any. We'd be generating all our > > electric wth nukes. > > I'm not particularly thrilled with the enviro-weenies myself but > you're using them as a whipping boy to excuse your own lack of > responsibility. 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. > > it most harms young kids IQs How often? 1 in 10? 1 in 10,000? > 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 > 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??? > 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. > 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. > > 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. > 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. >>>> 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. > 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. |