Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Just put the waste here, until we heal the paranoia and startOn Oct 28, 4:51 am, "stu" <no where just yet> wrote:
Worse yet, there is plenty of nuclear waste stored at the reactor sites
that is not in any containment vessel. They let the rods cool a bit
before even considering transferring them offsite, and we now know Yucca
Mountain will not be opened.
I won't claim to have seen every nuclear site. But of all those I have
seen, not one had spent fuel outside of the multi-layer casks that have
something like 55 tons of shielding. Walking and working around these
storage buildings and/or "pads", my dosimeter never went over 0.01
millirads per hour dose rate. You'll get more exposure than that just
walking on the sidewalk beside by the granite-faced walls of the bank
downtime.
Oh, I already know I have no value to _YOU_.Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
"Don T" <-painter-@louvre.org> wrote in message
news:toWdnWVkGLbonnvXnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@earthlink.com...
It is a worthy thing to fight for one's freedom; it is another sight
finer to fight for another man's. ~Mark Twain
What's the value of fighting for the freedom of a man who doesn't want
Freedom but wants Mommy?
How many times do you need to be told that you have no value?
m...@sushi.com> wrote in message
news:35330600-a2c4-411b-a62c-c7c837113931@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 27, 9:23 pm, "stu" <no where just yet> wrote:
m...@sushi.com> wrote in message
news:80d4465c-e5e7-4b6e-9637-598cf1eca8bc@m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com....
On Oct 27, 12:49 pm, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:34:04 -0400, nospam wrote:
With all due respect Don, you are full of it, there's an energy cost
tied
to production of any product, few of them produce ANY energy,or
payback
and they degrade from the time of purchase. Nobody knows what the
future
cost of electricity is, but it's bound to increase greatly.
Unless we can somehow miraculously heal the country of its paranoia and
get a viable nuclear power program going.
Copy the reactors from the submarines and aircraft carriers and use them
to power tankers and container ships and cruise ships.
Thanks,
Rich
You should investigate how much diesel goes into producing the uranium
to fuel the reactor. Uranium is very plentiful, but the yield is very
low. Eventually you make back the energy in producing the fuel, but
it's not like the fuel is free. Now if we had reprocessing plants, the
math would be more favorable, but reprocessing is very messy.
I used to be pro-nuclear until I read Dr. Helen Caldicot's "Nuclear
Power is not the Answer.". One thing I hadn't realized is nuclear
plants have to release gas periodically. The amount of radiation
released is very small, probably less than that of a coal plant, but
it isn't the closed loop system everyone makes it out to be.
OMG did you manage to read the whole thing?
You might want to read a few other books before you abandon "pro-nuclear"
Yes, I read the whole book. Not sure when you went to college, but "in
the day" the BSEE required a class in thermodynamics. I got the
Babcock and Wilcox indoctrination. I was around for the claim of
nuclear power being so cheap they wouldn't meter it. I was also near
TMI when the accident occurred.. As time passed, much of the cover-up
of the event was declassified. [Shocker: the government lies!] I was
went from pro to neutral to probably negative. There is no solution
for the nuclear waste. Worse yet, there is plenty of nuclear waste
stored at the reactor sites that is not in any containment vessel.
They let the rods cool a bit before even considering transferring them
offsite, and we now know Yucca Mountain will not be opened.
Get the book and read the other side's opinion. Calecott's book is
well documented. It considers the entire "food chain" of nuclear
power. I didn't even bring up the power needed to enrich the fuel. It
is hard to get a number on this since over the years the centrifuge
technology has become more efficient. As you probably know, the
uranium for the WWII nukes was enriched at Oakridge due to the
availability of cheap coal power.
Basically, nuclear power isn't nearly all that it is cracked up to be.
I rather have more wind and solar, plus conservation. Sure, it chops
up little birdies, but hey, you need to break some eggs to make an
omlet.
Oh I have the book, I just haven't finished reading it. But I do have a
"issues" with some of what I have read so far. I also have "the new nuclear
danger" and have a few problems with that as well, although I haven't
finished writing down the problems I have with it.
I won't claim to have seen every nuclear site. But of all those Im...@sushi.com> wrote in message
Worse yet, there is plenty of nuclear waste
stored at the reactor sites that is not in any containment vessel.
They let the rods cool a bit before even considering transferring them
offsite, and we now know Yucca Mountain will not be opened.
No body cares one fuck about your spammed Porsche crap. Fuck off.Look at the items he bought, they are $1 - $5 category:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230366346446
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=370242029636
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=370242029636
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:13:20 -0800, "EHWollmann"
arcturianone@earthlink.net> wrote:
Look at the items he bought, they are $1 - $5 category:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230366346446
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=370242029636
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=370242029636
No body cares one fuck about your spammed Porsche crap. Fuck off.
Especially at night.... factor in batteries and invertors and its way moreTheM wrote:
"vaughn" <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@gmail.FAKE.com> wrote in message news:hc7utq$1a1$1@news.eternal-september.org...
"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message news:7kooa3F39fllbU1@mid.individual.net...
For net energy, a quarter per peak pv watt is needed.
Even then, it would be many years after a quarter per watt for actual breakeven, owing to all the previously lost energy.
Huh? I usually agree with Don on these things, but here he seems to be confusing energy break even with economic break even. I
a perfect world they might be comparable, but I doubt if that is true in the real world.
Vaughn
I think what he wants to say is that energy break even is many years down the road,
possibly decades. And fixing and maintaining it might kill the small net energy surplus.
And before we get to break even we might have new, much better technology.
M
Who knows, but for a $1.98 a watt it's a good deal if you want to give it a go. I know I could run my home office off a couple of
panels (laptop, printer etc.)Even having a couple would keep the lights on
in an emergency.
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:02:56 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
"Don T" <-painter-@louvre.org> wrote in message
news:toWdnWVkGLbonnvXnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@earthlink.com...
It is a worthy thing to fight for one's freedom; it is another sight
finer to fight for another man's. ~Mark Twain
What's the value of fighting for the freedom of a man who doesn't want
Freedom but wants Mommy?
How many times do you need to be told that you have no value?
Oh, I already know I have no value to _YOU_.
But what's your opinion worth? Frankly, I consider being hated by the
likes of you to be high praise.
Michael, that hatred of me that you're carrying around in your heart
has precisely zero effect on me, but it's eating you up from the inside
out. And you make no bones about announcing the symptoms manifested by
the hatred in your heart.
Hatred doesn't affect the one who is hated, but it kills the one doing
the hating.
I hope you can heal.
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
nospam@nevis.com wrote:
TheM wrote:
"vaughn" <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@gmail.FAKE.com> wrote in message news:hc7utq$1a1$1@news.eternal-september.org...
"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message news:7kooa3F39fllbU1@mid.individual.net...
For net energy, a quarter per peak pv watt is needed.
Even then, it would be many years after a quarter per watt for actual breakeven, owing to all the previously lost energy.
Huh? I usually agree with Don on these things, but here he seems to be confusing energy break even with economic break even. I a
perfect world they might be comparable, but I doubt if that is true in the real world.
Vaughn
I think what he wants to say is that energy break even is many years down the road,
possibly decades. And fixing and maintaining it might kill the small net energy surplus.
And before we get to break even we might have new, much better technology.
M
Who knows, but for a $1.98 a watt it's a good deal if you want to give
it a go. I know I could run my home office off a couple of panels
(laptop, printer etc.)Even having a couple would keep the lights on
in an emergency.
If there is enough sun to power the lights, you don't need them.
After 4pm six months of the year, yes I do need lights.
Expensive, yes. But define "short lived". With proper care, 10 years orThe solar panels are worthless for that use without expensive, short
lived batteries.
________)
(, / /)
/___, _ (/_ ___
/ (_(_(__/(__ (_/_(_)(_(_
(_/ .-/
(_/
Actually for system you don't really need inverters at all. I useFor a laptop, printer and a couple of 15 watt compact florescent lights?
Hardly a huge expense, with 1000watt inverters $100.00 on ebay, a couple
of Sams' club deep cycle batteries ?
Kiss myOn Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:56:44 -0700 (PDT), a7yvm109gf5d1@netzero.com
wrote:
________)
(, / /)
/___, _ (/_ ___
/ (_(_(__/(__ (_/_(_)(_(_
(_/ .-/
(_/
Retards like you should get kicked OUT of paypal, and ebay as well.
And the sun could snuff out tomorrow, life is chancy. With yourDirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
nospam@nevis.com wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
nospam@nevis.com wrote:
TheM wrote:
"vaughn" <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@gmail.FAKE.com> wrote in message news:hc7utq$1a1$1@news.eternal-september.org...
"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message news:7kooa3F39fllbU1@mid.individual.net...
For net energy, a quarter per peak pv watt is needed.
Even then, it would be many years after a quarter per watt for actual breakeven, owing to all the previously lost energy.
Huh? I usually agree with Don on these things, but here he seems to be confusing energy break even with economic break even. I a
perfect world they might be comparable, but I doubt if that is true in the real world.
Vaughn
I think what he wants to say is that energy break even is many years down the road,
possibly decades. And fixing and maintaining it might kill the small net energy surplus.
And before we get to break even we might have new, much better technology.
M
Who knows, but for a $1.98 a watt it's a good deal if you want to give
it a go. I know I could run my home office off a couple of panels
(laptop, printer etc.)Even having a couple would keep the lights on
in an emergency.
If there is enough sun to power the lights, you don't need them.
After 4pm six months of the year, yes I do need lights.
The solar panels are worthless for that use without expensive, short
lived batteries.
Cheap deep cycle batteries with a 15 year guarantee are available
What guarantee do you have that the seller will be in business next
year, let alone 15 years from now?
Which definitely contains an inverter, thus, adding cost.nospam@nevis.com> wrote in message news:4ae8ff39$1@news.x-privat.org...
For a laptop, printer and a couple of 15 watt compact florescent lights?
Hardly a huge expense, with 1000watt inverters $100.00 on ebay, a couple
of Sams' club deep cycle batteries ?
Actually for system you don't really need inverters at all. I use
12-volt compact florescent lamps,
Which possibly also contains an inverter to convert 12 V to 17 V.and 12 volt adapters are available for
laptops.
This is a good strategy if the 12 V system total cost is less than theI use the lamps out in my yard, and my in-home 12-volt wiring
system is slowly growing.
Expensive, yes. But define "short lived". With proper care, 10 years
or more is not unheard of for a good set of lead acid batteries. In the
past, I have been lucky enough to "scrounge" good used batteries from
large UPS systems. In my home system I typically get another 5 years
service from them.
Vaughn
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:yqadnW0BsJ4uR3XXnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@earthlink.com...
The solar panels are worthless for that use without expensive, short
lived batteries.
Cheap deep cycle batteries with a 15 year guarantee are available
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:12:41 -0400, "vaughn"
This is a good strategy if the 12 V system total cost is less than the
cost of more common 120 V (US) or 230 V (Europe) systems added with
the inverter cost.
Paul
Yes, but demand, and the competition that demand generates, is a main
driver for improving technology. If we just fold our arms and wait for
technology to improve in the absence of demand, technology improvement is
unlikely to ever happen.
Vaughn
Actually, the 120 or 240 versions also contain electronics, which alsoOn Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:12:41 -0400, "vaughn"
vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@gmail.FAKE.com> wrote:
nospam@nevis.com> wrote in message news:4ae8ff39$1@news.x-privat.org...
For a laptop, printer and a couple of 15 watt compact florescent lights?
Hardly a huge expense, with 1000watt inverters $100.00 on ebay, a couple
of Sams' club deep cycle batteries ?
Actually for system you don't really need inverters at all. I use
12-volt compact florescent lamps,
Which definitely contains an inverter, thus, adding cost.
Perhaps, but it would be an inverter sized for the specific job and wouldand 12 volt adapters are available for
laptops.
Which possibly also contains an inverter to convert 12 V to 17 V.
I do it mostly to avoid the 24/7 drain of a central inverter. (Yes, I knowThis is a good strategy if the 12 V system total cost is less than the
cost of more common 120 V (US) or 230 V (Europe) systems added with
the inverter cost.