wrote in message
ups.com...
...
Maybe I should not post this; could be grounds for invasion.

I don't think that'll work. I don't think it worked last time. g
...

Way OT here, but the United States of America has invaded the _nation_
of Canada exactly zero times.

--Tom.



Bzzzt.... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109370/ g

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Gogarty wrote:

Ain't gonna happen. Oil is too cheap and too convenient. Nothing but nothing
can replace it for the vast majority of energy needs for as far into the
future as you want to project. The only truly viable competitor, and only for
major power stations, is nuclear -- provided the cost of safety can be
reduced.

Reactor accidents have shown us how serious this issue is. Anyone in North America who was alive when
Chernobyl melted down has strontium and cesium isotopes in their bone, teeth and thyroid tissues from
that accident. But even more problematic is the storage of so-called "spent" fuel pellets. With
half-lives in the hundred thousand year range, more thought needs to be given to disposal methods. IT
may be that there is no viable way to deal with reactor waste. Then there is the issue of cost.
Reactors have short life spans. What to do with a reactor core that is no longer viable after years
of being bombarded by radiation? Big $$$$$$$ to replace. True, nuclear fuels produce obscene amounts
of energy relative to its mass, but...

Gordon wrote in news:13321p32bcl5201
@corp.supernews.com:

I've often wondered why neither of our inglorious political parties
do nothing to wean the US off oil, but maybe its not such a hot idea.
Gordon



You live under the mistaken notion that political parties have something
to do with actually running the country, which is simply not true.

They are simply slaves to the powerful bankers, who fund and market the
oil and energy businesses, owning most of it, we are forced to support if
we want to have transportation.

Here's a great movie, if you haven't seen it....
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zsZO6G7dfpI
This is not a conspiracy nutcase from the boonies. It's very
professionally done by Aaron Russo, a Hollywood producer.

the_bmac wrote:
Gogarty wrote:

Ain't gonna happen. Oil is too cheap and too convenient. Nothing but
nothing can replace it for the vast majority of energy needs for as
far into the future as you want to project. The only truly viable
competitor, and only for major power stations, is nuclear -- provided
the cost of safety can be reduced.

Reactor accidents have shown us how serious this issue is. Anyone in
North America who was alive when Chernobyl melted down has strontium and
cesium isotopes in their bone, teeth and thyroid tissues from that
accident. But even more problematic is the storage of so-called "spent"
fuel pellets. With half-lives in the hundred thousand year range, more
thought needs to be given to disposal methods. IT may be that there is
no viable way to deal with reactor waste. Then there is the issue of
cost. Reactors have short life spans. What to do with a reactor core
that is no longer viable after years of being bombarded by radiation?
Big $$$$$$$ to replace. True, nuclear fuels produce obscene amounts of
energy relative to its mass, but...

Safety? I think every capitol ship in the US Navy is now nuclear.
Don't seem to be many of those going TU. And France among others have
bookoo reactors.
G

Larry wrote:
Gordon wrote in news:13321p32bcl5201
@corp.supernews.com:

I've often wondered why neither of our inglorious political parties
do nothing to wean the US off oil, but maybe its not such a hot idea.
Gordon



You live under the mistaken notion that political parties have something
to do with actually running the country, which is simply not true.

They are simply slaves to the powerful bankers, who fund and market the
oil and energy businesses, owning most of it, we are forced to support if
we want to have transportation.

Here's a great movie, if you haven't seen it....
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zsZO6G7dfpI
This is not a conspiracy nutcase from the boonies. It's very
professionally done by Aaron Russo, a Hollywood producer.


Isn't M Moore a hollywood producer?
G

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:47:29 -0400, the_bmac wrote:

Gogarty wrote:

Ain't gonna happen. Oil is too cheap and too convenient. Nothing but nothing
can replace it for the vast majority of energy needs for as far into the
future as you want to project. The only truly viable competitor, and only for
major power stations, is nuclear -- provided the cost of safety can be
reduced.

Reactor accidents have shown us how serious this issue is. Anyone in North America who was alive when
Chernobyl melted down has strontium and cesium isotopes in their bone, teeth and thyroid tissues from
that accident. But even more problematic is the storage of so-called "spent" fuel pellets. With
half-lives in the hundred thousand year range, more thought needs to be given to disposal methods. IT
may be that there is no viable way to deal with reactor waste. Then there is the issue of cost.
Reactors have short life spans. What to do with a reactor core that is no longer viable after years
of being bombarded by radiation? Big $$$$$$$ to replace. True, nuclear fuels produce obscene amounts
of energy relative to its mass, but...

When looking at the bad aspects of nukes, it makes sense to likewise
look at the same for current power generation sources.
I don't have all the numbers for the tons of filth put in the
atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, the damage done, and the elements
thereby remaining in human tissue, but I'm pretty sure those who do
would make the case that it far worse than nukes generating equivalent
power.
Much of the fossil fuel burning goes to stationary outputs; power for
homes and manufacturing, heating homes, etc. Natural gas reserves
are also being reduced to generate electricity, making it more and
more expensive to heat buildings with NG.
Nukes can replace all of that fossil fuel use.
I'm guessing here, but having been a long time commuter often caught
in miles long jams, I suspect most of the transport fuel is burned by
commuters and those otherwise taking short trips.
Nuke power charged batteries could replace much of that.
The challenges of safe nuke plants and better battery technology
hardly seem daunting. The French have done well with nukes, and
I believe we can even improve on that, since their program is decades
old. Waste disposal is always a difficult issue, be it nuclear, fly
ash, plastic garbage bags, or holding tanks. Lots of scare tactics
are employed about nukes, but the dangers can be managed.
The big problem is weak, squirrely politicians who won't provide
leadership by setting out concrete goals.
Just my thoughts.

--Vic

"the_bmac" wrote in message ...
Gogarty wrote:

Snip...

Reactor accidents have shown us how serious this issue is. Anyone in North America who was alive when Chernobyl melted down has
strontium and cesium isotopes in their bone, teeth and thyroid tissues from that accident. But even more problematic is the
storage of so-called "spent" fuel pellets. With half-lives in the hundred thousand year range, more thought needs to be given to
disposal methods. IT may be that there is no viable way to deal with reactor waste. Then there is the issue of cost. Reactors
have short life spans. What to do with a reactor core that is no longer viable after years of being bombarded by radiation? Big
$$$$$$$ to replace. True, nuclear fuels produce obscene amounts of energy relative to its mass, but...

You can deal with the wast. Nuking the Nukes:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7...ead.html?pg=19

I suspect that Tom is hoping for just that answer since Canada was not a
nation at that time. The US has had lots of border forays with it's neighbor
to the north both before and after it became a nation.

Dave M.

David Martel wrote:
I suspect that Tom is hoping for just that answer since Canada was not a
nation at that time. The US has had lots of border forays with it's neighbor
to the north both before and after it became a nation.

yes before, after??? hmmm... at any rate, all involved US forces dragging heavily bruised arses back
from whence they came

"David Martel" wrote in message
nk.net...
I suspect that Tom is hoping for just that answer since Canada was not a
nation at that time. The US has had lots of border forays with it's
neighbor to the north both before and after it became a nation.

Dave M.

That's right... 1867 was the magic date. Before that we were just a colony
of Great Britain.