Clunker Math
"Gene" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:04:49 -0400, John H.
wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 23:40:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:
"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...
And that doesn't take into account the loss of revenue for the
aftermarket
parts and repair industry that just lost those potential 700,000
vehicles
to the junkyard. Nor the energy savings of recycling those parts
through
the re-manufacturing industry
And, it doesn't take into account the improvement to the atmosphere,
small
though it is (if you really want a big improvement, severely restrict
beef
sales), nor the improvement, also relatively small in the viability of
the
auto manufacturers nor putting the breaks on a worsening job market.
Hate to break it to you, but most of the usable parts of the clunkers
were
salvaged before the shredding. There was some loss to the secondary car
sales market, since they were removed from the mix.
Until you liberals get serious about nuclear energy, your 'improvement
to the atmosphere' comments are little more than humorous politics.
Nuclear energy sucks.
It is dirty, dangerous, and expensive. I pay 30% more for the
electricity running through this laptop sitting while I'm sitting on
this couch, than I do at my other home which is served by a coal
plant. Once or twice a year, they remind me that I have to drive by
the melting reactor building to get away, if there ever is a serious
event. That makes my family safe, huh? What the HELL do we do with all
of that spent fuel? It is ACCUMULATING AT THE REACTOR COMPLEXES now,
since no state wants it transported down their roads or stored within
their borders. When will the bill come due and who will pay for the
final disposal of that stuff?
I'd be all for it, if we could overcome the shortcomings, but at this
writing it just sucks.
--
The Pollyanna twins...Kevin & JohnnyPrepH think nuclear power is as safe as
going to Sunday mass.
Maybe they should sit on one of the spent rods for a bit to see if it can
power up their brains.
|