No One Ever Said Post Peak Oil Would Be A Rose Garden

If you don't like my solutions then post your own.

Either lead follow or get out of the way.


Bret Cahill

 

[Robert Cohen]

On Jul 27, 7:19 pm, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:

If you don't like my solutions then post your own.

Either lead follow or get out of the way.

Bret Cahill

re: what to do immediately, then asap thereafter

Immediately if not sooner, "explicitly incentivized" carpooling, which
i've pushef for ad nauseam, though here's it again, two-thirds down
the page

http://hometown.aol.com/__121b_jp62FVbkQiq65VmOdYqjhKor5EGWYhVZLB6sTLqP/Ciij9hJ31n6zA=
T. Boone Pickens' natural gas conversions for trucks, busses, and
"goods carriers" appeals to me as something radical that can be done
for sure

Pickens' wind energy is ok by me too, tho "not in my backyard" people
do seem to hate the ugly esthetic and whiny noise

the apparently many universities that are concentrating on various
alternative energy ideas is GOOD

infrastructure improvements a-plenty

re ALASKA-ARCTIC, FLORIDA, CALIF, ETAL these oughta at least allow
maximal seismic and other oil & natual gas TESTINGS off their semi
pristine coasts, and plans at least need be readied if the "energy
war" requires such, and it currently appears to me that it certainly
does, as we devolve into recession-depression

<wacky playboy & genius Howard Hiughes should be brought back from the
dead so he could invent some other drilling breakthrough>

an efficient, safe nuclear power plant table model should be ready
too, via virtual puterizing and super-computer fact sorting out and
distilling

it's time to employ quality personnel whom know how to do it w/o all
the corruption, fuckk-ups and over runs

the cost over runs appear to me to be njormative, disingenuous rip-off
by the power companies, contractors and unions involved

coal--->scrubbed semi-clean & gasolene, jet fuel, blah, blah ditto the
similar above b.s.

so,yeah, i am coping out

in other words, i dunno

since the voters have rejecected me (my innocuous ideas) about using
prisoners and the chronically unemployed to make solar stuff two or
three decades ago, then the "energy defense" or "energy war" is not my
decision to make anyway

as usual, usa society appears to me to be "gridlocked" in endless
argumentation, admittedly all the sides have good ideas with
contradictions

 

[Robert Cohen]

"Oil price maintenance" is as constitutional as everything else, so
it's not per se a legalistic thing; thoough wouldn't the public de-
ball any politician that endorses such ?

though this article seems very sensible, it ain't gonna be, unless by
intellectual subtefuge thru p.r. with convoluted machinations

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_31/b4094000658012.htm?chan=magazine+channel_top+stories

 

You wouldnt know what a real rose garden was if you fell into it.

I'll have you know that phosphoric acid is good for roses which thrive
in low pH soil..


Bret Cahill

 

If some farmer balks at electric tractors I just pull out my team of
oxen and say, "go crazy."

Then I stagger around behind the oxen for a few minutes.

Then I tell them,

"Cheap oil = easy street"

"Expensive oil = full employment"

You can get middle school students to shut up with that one.


Bret Cahill

 

Taint gunna happen anyway.

Sticking yer head in the sand and denying reality does _not_ change
reality.


Bret Cahill

 

[Immortalist]

On Jul 27, 4:37 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
If you don't like my solutions then post your own.

Already did that.

Biodiesel for farming.

LPG and CNG for cars.

Exploit the oil sands and shale oil when the price of oil stays high enough for long enough to make that economically
viable.

Convert coal to liquid fuel when the price of oil stays high enough for long enough to make that economically viable.

Replace coal fired power stations with nukes if you care about the CO2 emissions from power stations.

Heat houses with electricty from nukes so the LPG and CNG can be used as a transport fuel.

Generate hydrogen using nukes when the price of LPG and CNG is getting high enough to make that economically viable.

Dont bother with solar when on the grid unless its cheaper than power
from nukes and that has to allow for the fact that is mostly not available
when its most in demand in most modern first world countrys.

Use solar in some non grid situations like RVs running on biodiesel or LPG or CNG to run the engine.

I like your approach man. Some of your response styles if tweaked
could help you win alot of debates easily with the facts and clear
persuasive arguments. Maybe build up a text database with responses
and data supporting arguments. How would you defend your position on
nuclear when someone comes up with these attacks?

...Critics claim that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous and
decline [66]energy source, with decreasing proportion of nuclear
energy in power production, and dispute whether the risks can be
reduced through new technology. Critics also point to the problem of
storing radioactive waste, the potential for possibly severe
radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage, the possibility of
nuclear proliferation and the disadvantages of centralized electrical
production...

...The primary environmental impacts of nuclear power include Uranium
mining, radioactive effluent emissions, and waste heat...

...Greenpeace has produced a report titled An American Chernobyl:
Nuclear “Near Misses” at U.S. Reactors Since 1986 which "reveals that
nearly two hundred “near misses” to nuclear meltdowns have occurred in
the United States". At almost 450 nuclear plants in the world that
risk is greatly magnified, they say. This is not to mention numerous
incidents, many supposedly unreported, that have occurred. Another
report produced by Greenpeace called Nuclear Reactor Hazards: Ongoing
Dangers of Operating Nuclear Technology in the 21st Century claims
that risk of a major accident has increased in the past years...

...Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons and related
technology to nations not recognized as "Nuclear Weapon States" by the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Since the days of the Manhattan
Project it has been known that reactors could be used for weapons-
development purposes—the first nuclear reactors were developed for
exactly this reason—as the operation of a nuclear reactor converts
U-238 into plutonium. As a consequence, since the 1950s there have
been concerns about the possibility of using reactors as a dual-use
technology, whereby apparently peaceful technological development
could serve as an approach to nuclear weapons capability...

...An additional concern with nuclear power plants is that if the by-
products of nuclear fission—the nuclear waste generated by the plant—
were to be unprotected it could be used as a radiological weapon,
colloquially known as a "dirty bomb"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

 

[Steve Thomas]

On Jul 28, 9:56 am, "V for Vendicar"
<Execute_The_Traitor_In_The_White_Ho...@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote

Or piss on your stupid wanking from a great height.

  Oh look, another RepubliKKKan Turd with a sexual Fetish.

  This one for water sports, and probably scat too.

  So Pissboy ROD, if that is your real name....  Which do you like better,
EuroScat, AmeriKKKanScat, or JapScat?

  Fatherland Security needs to know.

You are a congenital LLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRR
and URAH FUCKIN

MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[zzbunker@netscape.net]

On Jul 27, 7:37 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
If you don't like my solutions then post your own.

Already did that.

Biodiesel for farming.

LPG and CNG for cars.

Exploit the oil sands and shale oil when the price of oil stays high enough for long enough to make that economically
viable.

Convert coal to liquid fuel when the price of oil stays high enough for long enough to make that economically viable.

Replace coal fired power stations with nukes if you care about the CO2 emissions from power stations.

Heat houses with electricty from nukes so the LPG and CNG can be used as a transport fuel.

Generate hydrogen using nukes when the price of LPG and CNG is getting high enough to make that economically viable.

Dont bother with solar when on the grid unless its cheaper than power
from nukes and that has to allow for the fact that is mostly not available
when its most in demand in most modern first world countrys.

We don't bnother. That's why we built laser-guided bombs for the
idiots in the
first world counties, cruise missiles for the shale wanks, AI++++
for the
morons in washington, robots all the gas morons, and Wind Energy
that works
for the GM stooges, rather than solar.

Use solar in some non grid situations like RVs running on biodiesel or LPG or CNG to run the engine.

 

[Uncle Ben]

On Jul 28, 12:48 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 27, 4:37 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:





BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
If you don't like my solutions then post your own.

Already did that.

Biodiesel for farming.

LPG and CNG for cars.

Exploit the oil sands and shale oil when the price of oil stays high enough for long enough to make that economically
viable.

Convert coal to liquid fuel when the price of oil stays high enough for long enough to make that economically viable.

Replace coal fired power stations with nukes if you care about the CO2 emissions from power stations.

Heat houses with electricty from nukes so the LPG and CNG can be used as a transport fuel.

Generate hydrogen using nukes when the price of LPG and CNG is getting high enough to make that economically viable.

Dont bother with solar when on the grid unless its cheaper than power
from nukes and that has to allow for the fact that is mostly not available
when its most in demand in most modern first world countrys.

Use solar in some non grid situations like RVs running on biodiesel or LPG or CNG to run the engine.

I like your approach man. Some of your response styles if tweaked
could help you win alot of debates easily with the facts and clear
persuasive arguments. Maybe build up a text database with responses
and data supporting arguments. How would you defend your position on
nuclear when someone comes up with these attacks?

...Critics claim that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous and
decline [66]energy source, with decreasing proportion of nuclear
energy in power production, and dispute whether the risks can be
reduced through new technology. Critics also point to the problem of
storing radioactive waste, the potential for possibly severe
radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage, the possibility of
nuclear proliferation and the disadvantages of centralized electrical
production...

...The primary environmental impacts of nuclear power include Uranium
mining, radioactive effluent emissions, and waste heat...

...Greenpeace has produced a report titled An American Chernobyl:
Nuclear “Near Misses” at U.S. Reactors Since 1986 which "reveals that
nearly two hundred “near misses” to nuclear meltdowns have occurred in
the United States". At almost 450 nuclear plants in the world that
risk is greatly magnified, they say. This is not to mention numerous
incidents, many supposedly unreported, that have occurred. Another
report produced by Greenpeace called Nuclear Reactor Hazards: Ongoing
Dangers of Operating Nuclear Technology in the 21st Century claims
that risk of a major accident has increased in the past years...

...Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons and related
technology to nations not recognized as "Nuclear Weapon States" by the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Since the days of the Manhattan
Project it has been known that reactors could be used for weapons-
development purposes—the first nuclear reactors were developed for
exactly this reason—as the operation of a nuclear reactor converts
U-238 into plutonium. As a consequence, since the 1950s there have
been concerns about the possibility of using reactors as a dual-use
technology, whereby apparently peaceful technological development
could serve as an approach to nuclear weapons capability...

...An additional concern with nuclear power plants is that if the by-
products of nuclear fission—the nuclear waste generated by the plant—
were to be unprotected it could be used as a radiological weapon,
colloquially known as a "dirty bomb"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

IIRC the leader of Greenpeace has come out in favor of nuclear electrc
power.

No power source is without its downside, but if we don't come up soon
with something other than oil, the civilization of the world is going
to be set back 100 years, and the world's population is gong to shrink
correspondingly.

Many, many people are going to starve to death!

Balance the risks against that possibility.

Uncle Ben

 

[Immortalist]

On Jul 27, 11:12 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote



Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote
If you don't like my solutions then post your own.
Already did that.
Biodiesel for farming.
LPG and CNG for cars.
Exploit the oil sands and shale oil when the price of oil stays
high enough for long enough to make that economically viable.
Convert coal to liquid fuel when the price of oil stays high
enough for long enough to make that economically viable.
Replace coal fired power stations with nukes if you
care about the CO2 emissions from power stations.
Heat houses with electricty from nukes so the
LPG and CNG can be used as a transport fuel.
Generate hydrogen using nukes when the price of LPG and
CNG is getting high enough to make that economically viable.
Dont bother with solar when on the grid unless its cheaper than power
from nukes and that has to allow for the fact that is mostly not available
when its most in demand in most modern first world countrys.
Use solar in some non grid situations like RVs running on biodiesel
or LPG or CNG to run the engine.
I like your approach man. Some of your response
styles if tweaked could help you win alot of debates
easily with the facts and clear persuasive arguments.

Dont need any of that, the list above is fine.

Maybe build up a text database with responses and data supporting arguments.

Dont need any of that either.

How would you defend your position on nuclear
when someone comes up with these attacks?

Point them at the French that have been doing it for a long time now
and currently generate around 75% of their electricity that way.

...Critics claim that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous

The french havent even had a major nuclear accident.

and decline [66]energy source,

Irrelevant to what is clearly possible.

with decreasing proportion of nuclear energy in power production,

Irrelevant to what is clearly possible.

and dispute whether the risks can be reduced through new technology.

The french havent even had a major nuclear accident.

Critics also point to the problem of storing radioactive waste,

Completely routine to do that.

the potential for possibly severe radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage,

The french havent even had a major nuclear accident.

the possibility of nuclear proliferation

Irrelevant when used in the first world.

and the disadvantages of centralized electrical production...

No such animal. Its the national grids that make it work so well.

...The primary environmental impacts of nuclear power include Uranium mining,

No worse than coal mining it replaces.

radioactive effluent emissions,

Coal burning power stations emit even more
because of the radioactive stuff in the coal they burn.

and waste heat...

Thats not a bad thing, its a good thing in areas what heat anyway.

...Greenpeace has produced a report titled An American Chernobyl:
Nuclear “Near Misses” at U.S. Reactors Since 1986 which "reveals that
nearly two hundred “near misses” to nuclear meltdowns have occurred in
the United States".

Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies.

At almost 450 nuclear plants in the world that risk is greatly magnified, they say.

Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies.

This is not to mention numerous incidents, many supposedly unreported, that have occurred.

Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies.

Another report produced by Greenpeace called Nuclear Reactor Hazards:
Ongoing Dangers of Operating Nuclear Technology in the 21st Century
claims that risk of a major accident has increased in the past years...

Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies.

...Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons and related
technology to nations not recognized as "Nuclear Weapon States" by
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Irrelevant when used in the first world and places like china and india that have those already.

Since the days of the Manhattan Project it has been known
that reactors could be used for weapons- development purposes
—the first nuclear reactors were developed for exactly this reason
—as the operation of a nuclear reactor converts U-238 into plutonium.

Like I said, its desirable to develop nukes that cant be used for weapons production.

As a consequence, since the 1950s there have been concerns
about the possibility of using reactors as a dual-use technology,
whereby apparently peaceful technological development
could serve as an approach to nuclear weapons capability...

Like I said, its desirable to develop nukes that cant be used for weapons production.

...An additional concern with nuclear power plants is that if the
by- products of nuclear fission—the nuclear waste generated
by the plant— were to be unprotected it could be used as a
radiological weapon, colloquially known as a "dirty bomb"...

Replacing the first world use of coal in electricity generation
with nukes and the two most populous countrys, wouldnt make
any difference to that because they have nukes already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

Just checking.

 

If some farmer balks at electric tractors I just pull out my team of oxen and say, "go crazy."
Then I stagger around behind the oxen for a few minutes.

Been having those

Pathetic.

Nope.

Ain't gonna happen.


Bret Cahill

 

Modern electronic transfers make a lot more sense.-

Prove it.


Bret Cahill

 

[rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com]

On Jul 27, 5:19 pm, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:

If you don't like my solutions then post your own.

Either lead follow or get out of the way.

Bret Cahill

Nuclear power.

Follow along, or get out of the way.

Nuclear proliferation is a non-issue for nuclear power. It is an
issue in global affairs, but it is distinct from nuclear power. The
number of nuclear power generating reactors needed by the Manhattan
Project was zero. The only link between nuclear power and nuclear
proliferation is as a supply of electricity to the enrichment plant.
The israelis still have not built a power reactor, and the canadians
have been looking at peaceful nuclear reactor applications for over
sixty years-- with no bombs built!

The science of waste disposal has long since been solved. The
political problem of waste disposal is being held up by
environmentalists for no good scientific reason-- they just want to
stop nuclear power (and force us to burn coal).

Nuclear power will allow you to power those electric tractors that you
are so fond of.

Without the cheap electricity that nuclear power is proven to be able
to deliver, voters will have to choose between burning coal, or a
drastically reduced standard of living. Short of an environmentalist
dictatorship, we can be fairly certain of increased coal burning, with
global warming prevention abandoned as 'too expensive'.

The hydrogen economy is stymied by electricity being too expensive.
Nuclear power will solve that problem.

 

If you don't like my solutions then post your own.

Either lead follow or get out of the way.

Bret Cahill

Nuclear power.

Show yer calculations including the cost of stainless steel.

Follow along, or get out of the way.

Where's the leadership?

Nuclear proliferation is a non-issue for nuclear power.

At least not in the U. S. where every WalMart has MX missiles.

�It is an
issue in global affairs, but it is distinct from nuclear power. ďż˝

Yer floggin' a dead horse.

The
number of nuclear power generating reactors needed by the Manhattan
Project was zero. �The only link between nuclear power and nuclear
proliferation is as a supply of electricity to the enrichment plant.
The israelis still have not built a power reactor, and the canadians
have been looking at peaceful nuclear reactor applications for over
sixty years-- with no bombs built!

Not that I have anything against nukes but if you digress too much
then you won't git them to believe you are a leader.

The science of waste disposal has long since been solved. �The
political problem of waste disposal is being held up by
environmentalists for no good scientific reason-- they just want to
stop nuclear power (and force us to burn coal).

Nuclear power will allow you to power those electric tractors that you
are so fond of.

Actually solar will do just fine.

Without the cheap electricity that nuclear power is proven to be able
to deliver, voters will have to choose between burning coal, or a
drastically reduced standard of living. �Short of an environmentalist
dictatorship, we can be fairly certain of increased coal burning, with
global warming prevention abandoned as 'too expensive'.

The hydrogen economy is stymied by electricity being too expensive.
Nuclear power will solve that problem.

The real problem is a cheap battery.


Bret Cahill

 

You wouldnt know what reality was if it bit you on your lard arse, child.

Show your calculations.

Totally huge.

Liar.

Cite?

Prove it.

 

If you don't like my solutions then post your own.
Either lead follow or get out of the way.

Nuclear power.

Conan Obrien.

Show yer calculations including the cost of stainless steel.

Dont need any of that,

Show yer calculations.

Nope.

Ain't gonna happen

Cite?

France has shown that its perfectly possible.

Nope. The French have socialized medicine which means logic won't
work in the U. S.

Nuclear proliferation is a non-issue for nuclear power.
At least not in the U. S. where every WalMart has MX missiles.

Not in any other first world country either.

Sorry Charlie. The U. S. has been 3rd world for quite some time.

That's why you can't git no Pell grant to git educated.

It is an issue in global affairs, but it is distinct from nuclear power. ?

Yer floggin' a dead horse.

You wouldnt know what a dead horse

Totally huge!

Nope.

.. . .

Nope,

Yup.

Show yer calculations.


Bret Cahill

 

[rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com]

On Jul 28, 10:53 pm, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:

If you don't like my solutions then post your own.
Either lead follow or get out of the way.
Bret Cahill
Nuclear power.

Show yer calculations including the cost of stainless steel.

Who are you to demand such? When you are challenged all that you do
is bluster.

The nuclear powerplants operating in the US are making huge piles of
profits, while paying into the disposal pool.

Follow along, or get out of the way.

Where's the leadership?

Nuclear proliferation is a non-issue for nuclear power.

At least not in the U. S. where every WalMart has MX missiles.

�It is an
issue in global affairs, but it is distinct from nuclear power. ďż˝

Yer floggin' a dead horse.

The
number of nuclear power generating reactors needed by the Manhattan
Project was zero. �The only link between nuclear power and nuclear
proliferation is as a supply of electricity to the enrichment plant.
The israelis still have not built a power reactor, and the canadians
have been looking at peaceful nuclear reactor applications for over
sixty years-- with no bombs built!

Not that I have anything against nukes but if you digress too much
then you won't git them to believe you are a leader.

if you have nothing against nukes, why are you not trying to promote
it?

The science of waste disposal has long since been solved. �The
political problem of waste disposal is being held up by
environmentalists for no good scientific reason-- they just want to
stop nuclear power (and force us to burn coal).
Nuclear power will allow you to power those electric tractors that you
are so fond of.

Actually solar will do just fine.

The required collector area 4 square meters for every three
kilowatt*hours, divided by the charge time in hours and divided again
by the efficiency of the collector. A full battery charge must be
collected within the time that a charge is used, or the tractor will
be sidelined for lack of energy. The rooftops of the typical
collection of farmhouse, barn, and outbuildings will not have enough
area to support it all.

Without the cheap electricity that nuclear power is proven to be able
to deliver, voters will have to choose between burning coal, or a
drastically reduced standard of living. �Short of an environmentalist
dictatorship, we can be fairly certain of increased coal burning, with
global warming prevention abandoned as 'too expensive'.

The hydrogen economy is stymied by electricity being too expensive.
Nuclear power will solve that problem.

The real problem is a cheap battery.

A cheap battery is a useless lump without energy to charge it.
Electrifying the transport sector will require a many-fold increase in
the electrical power grid. Natural gas has the problem that it will
also run out, so we are stuck with nuclear, so we may as well make a
virtue out of necessity.

Bret Cahill

 

[tg]

On Jul 29, 3:56 am, "rlbell.ns...@gmail.com" <rlbell.ns...@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Jul 28, 10:53 pm, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:

If you don't like my solutions then post your own.
Either lead follow or get out of the way.
Bret Cahill
Nuclear power.

Show yer calculations including the cost of stainless steel.

Who are you to demand such?  When you are challenged all that you do
is bluster.

The nuclear powerplants operating in the US are making huge piles of
profits, while paying into the disposal pool.





Follow along, or get out of the way.

Where's the leadership?

Nuclear proliferation is a non-issue for nuclear power.

At least not in the U. S. where every WalMart has MX missiles.

�It is an
issue in global affairs, but it is distinct from nuclear power. ďż˝

Yer floggin' a dead horse.

The
number of nuclear power generating reactors needed by the Manhattan
Project was zero. �The only link between nuclear power and nuclear
proliferation is as a supply of electricity to the enrichment plant.
The israelis still have not built a power reactor, and the canadians
have been looking at peaceful nuclear reactor applications for over
sixty years-- with no bombs built!

Not that I have anything against nukes but if you digress too much
then you won't git them to believe you are a leader.

if you have nothing against nukes, why are you not trying to promote
it?



The science of waste disposal has long since been solved. �The
political problem of waste disposal is being held up by
environmentalists for no good scientific reason-- they just want to
stop nuclear power (and force us to burn coal).
Nuclear power will allow you to power those electric tractors that you
are so fond of.

Actually solar will do just fine.

The required collector area 4 square meters for every three
kilowatt*hours, divided by the charge time in hours and divided again
by the efficiency of the collector.  A full battery charge must be
collected within the time that a charge is used, or the tractor will
be sidelined for lack of energy.  The rooftops of the typical
collection of farmhouse, barn, and outbuildings will not have enough
area to support it all.



Without the cheap electricity that nuclear power is proven to be able
to deliver, voters will have to choose between burning coal, or a
drastically reduced standard of living. �Short of an environmentalist
dictatorship, we can be fairly certain of increased coal burning, with
global warming prevention abandoned as 'too expensive'.

The hydrogen economy is stymied by electricity being too expensive.
Nuclear power will solve that problem.

The real problem is a cheap battery.

A cheap battery is a useless lump without energy to charge it.
Electrifying the transport sector will require a many-fold increase in
the electrical power grid.  Natural gas has the problem that it will
also run out, so we are stuck with nuclear, so we may as well make a
virtue out of necessity.

The reason we don't have more nuclear plants has nothing to do with
environmentalists, it has to do with economics and right-wing
ideology.

France has lots of nuclear plants, and that's because they were not
tied to phony arguments about the wonderful private sector. If you
want the gummint to subsidize nuclear plants (which it does, in
various ways,) then you should hire the socialist Frenchies to build
and run them in their terribly inefficient socialist top-down
regulated and uniform manner. And now that I think about it, I guess
they aren't so inefficient, since they have no problem relying on
nuclear power for what---80% of their electricity?

The other problem that you have with nuclear as a solution to CO2 or
other issues is that you just can't build the things fast enough, even
if you streamline the regulatory process. You have to get an enormous
amount of capital together, you need stuff like cement (big CO2
source), you need qualified welders, and on and on.

In the short term of 20-30 years the absolute easiest, cheapest and
largest improvement would come from conservation and efficiency. No
need for new tech.

Oh yeah and maybe some reduction in birth rates.

-tg






> > Bret Cahill

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:22:02 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Nope, there is no on and on.

Show your calculations.

Pathetic.

Ain't gonna happen

Nuke

---
Dodge.

JF