In article ,
says...
jps wrote in
:

In article ,
says...
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in
:

You cannot deny them a profit, but it is obvious the oil company's
are fleecing us.

Knight-Ridder has a higher profit margin than Exxon-Mobil. Is "Big
Media" fleecing us too? And if so, where are your protestations
against them?

One is a voluntary purchase, the other is as close to mandatory and
one could come.

Capiche?

The guy you voted for in 2000 said that the internal combustion engine is
the greatest threat to mankind, and you're calling the purchase of its
lifeblood "mandatory"? Reverend Gore will be quite disappointed that you
haven't converted your home to solar and your car to ethanol or vegetable
oil. After all, the enviro-loonies ARE right, right? That alternative
energy sources are viable, practical and cost-efficient? Or is it all
just a load of socialist lies designed to buttress the politics of envy?

Your statement answers that last question definitively. Thank-you.

And I suppose we'd be better off if we hadn't invented the gas engine,
after all, the steam engine did just as well, right?

That being the case, we should put all our investment in finding more
expensive methods of sucking oil from the earth until we've run out of
ways to do it.

Then we can shift our attention to alternatives, right? Uhhhhh....

So, your extremist retort is, assuming that anyone not aligned with your
near-sighted program is a faggot treehugger, our answer must be to stop
using petroleum products tomorrow.... no, not soon enough... tonight!!!!
Yeah, right.

The world economy would fail if the US suddenly stopped using petroleum
based products, your (much smarter) nemesis Al Gore knows that.

The point you don't want to admit, the one that I'm trying to drive
home, is that we need to make a bigger commitment to finding
alternatives to fossil-based fuels or find and implement methods of
using it more efficiently. With the current administration in control,
that ain't gonna happen. They're so deeply in the pocket of big energy
and corporate influence peddlers that they'd have to successfully fake
their own deaths to break the stranglehold.

There's no magic bullet but incremental investments in research and
development of energy technology can certainly help stem the incredible
dependence we have on petroleum.

I expect you consider yourself a conservative. Why is it that you
people preach anything but conservatism and still assume it's
conservative thinking?

jps

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
jps wrote in
:

In article ,
says...
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in
:

You cannot deny them a profit, but it is obvious the oil company's
are fleecing us.

Knight-Ridder has a higher profit margin than Exxon-Mobil. Is "Big
Media" fleecing us too? And if so, where are your protestations
against them?

One is a voluntary purchase, the other is as close to mandatory and
one could come.

Capiche?

The guy you voted for in 2000 said that the internal combustion engine is
the greatest threat to mankind, and you're calling the purchase of its
lifeblood "mandatory"? Reverend Gore will be quite disappointed that you
haven't converted your home to solar and your car to ethanol or vegetable
oil. After all, the enviro-loonies ARE right, right? That alternative
energy sources are viable, practical and cost-efficient? Or is it all
just a load of socialist lies designed to buttress the politics of envy?

Your statement answers that last question definitively. Thank-you.

And I suppose we'd be better off if we hadn't invented the gas engine,
after all, the steam engine did just as well, right?

That being the case, we should put all our investment in finding more
expensive methods of sucking oil from the earth until we've run out of
ways to do it.

Then we can shift our attention to alternatives, right? Uhhhhh....

So, your extremist retort is, assuming that anyone not aligned with your
near-sighted program is a faggot treehugger, our answer must be to stop
using petroleum products tomorrow.... no, not soon enough... tonight!!!!
Yeah, right.

The world economy would fail if the US suddenly stopped using petroleum
based products, your (much smarter) nemesis Al Gore knows that.

The point you don't want to admit, the one that I'm trying to drive
home, is that we need to make a bigger commitment to finding
alternatives to fossil-based fuels or find and implement methods of
using it more efficiently. With the current administration in control,
that ain't gonna happen. They're so deeply in the pocket of big energy
and corporate influence peddlers that they'd have to successfully fake
their own deaths to break the stranglehold.

There's no magic bullet but incremental investments in research and
development of energy technology can certainly help stem the incredible
dependence we have on petroleum.

I expect you consider yourself a conservative. Why is it that you
people preach anything but conservatism and still assume it's
conservative thinking?

jps

We have a cure for the energy problem. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! But the
enviro's got the building of same, outlawed.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...


We have a cure for the energy problem. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! But the
enviro's got the building of same, outlawed.

No knee-jerk reactions, OK? Forget Yucca Mountain.

As it stands now, we are unable to control nuclear waste. I did not say
"dispose of". I said "CONTROL", meaning assure that is secured against
misuse. When we can do that, then MAYBE we can build nuclear power plants
the was Starbucks builds coffee shops.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...


We have a cure for the energy problem. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! But the
enviro's got the building of same, outlawed.

No knee-jerk reactions, OK? Forget Yucca Mountain.

As it stands now, we are unable to control nuclear waste. I did not say
"dispose of". I said "CONTROL", meaning assure that is secured against
misuse. When we can do that, then MAYBE we can build nuclear power plants
the was Starbucks builds coffee shops.

What do France and Japan do with their nuclear waste? I believe that 80% of
France's electricity is generated from nuclear power plants and I believe
that Japan's is somewhere above 30%.

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:43:04 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


What do France and Japan do with their nuclear waste? I believe that 80%
of France's electricity is generated from nuclear power plants and I
believe that Japan's is somewhere above 30%.

They haven't solved the problem, either. France reprocesses the nuclear
waste. This retrieves the energy it can, and condenses the waste. It
then, either "stocks" it, or ships it abroad.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...gs/french.html

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31466

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...


We have a cure for the energy problem. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! But the
enviro's got the building of same, outlawed.

No knee-jerk reactions, OK? Forget Yucca Mountain.

As it stands now, we are unable to control nuclear waste. I did not say
"dispose of". I said "CONTROL", meaning assure that is secured against
misuse. When we can do that, then MAYBE we can build nuclear power plants
the was Starbucks builds coffee shops.

What do France and Japan do with their nuclear waste? I believe that 80%
of France's electricity is generated from nuclear power plants and I
believe that Japan's is somewhere above 30%.




I don't know what they do with it. In some cases, they (and other countries)
got fuel from us, and for some years, there's been an effort underway to
have them voluntarily return the spent fuel so (in theory) we can store it
safely. The program's moving too slowly, not because of any political
resistance, but simply because politicians are too busy with more exciting
things that hold the public's interest.

The February 2006 issue of Scientific American contains the best article
I've ever seen on the subject. It's definitely worth your effort to run out
and find it today. I'd summarize it for you, but I haven't finished reading
it. My son keep sticking the magazine in his book bag and taking it to
school to read during lunch.

Excerpt from web site - but it's hardly the juicy part:

Thwarting Nuclear Terrorism
Many civilian research reactors contain highly enriched uranium that
terrorists could use to build nuclear bombs
By Alexander Glaser and Frank N. von Hippel
The atomic bomb that incinerated the Japanese city of Hiroshima at the close
of World War II contained about 60 kilograms of chain-reacting uranium. When
the American "Little Boy" device detonated over the doomed port, one part of
the bomb's charge--a subcritical mass--was fired into the other by a
relatively simple gunlike mechanism, causing the uranium 235 in the combined
mass to go supercritical and explode with the force of 15 kilotons of TNT.
The weapon that devastated Nagasaki a few days later used plutonium rather
than uranium in its explosive charge and required much more complex
technology to set it off.

Despite the production of more than 100,000 nuclear weapons by a few nations
and some close calls during the succeeding 60 years, no similar nuclear
destruction has occurred so far. Today, however, an additional fearful
threat has arisen: that a subnational terrorist organization such as al
Qaeda might acquire highly enriched uranium (HEU), build a crude gun-type
detonating device and use the resulting nuclear weapon against a city. HEU
is uranium in which uranium 235, the isotope capable of sustaining a nuclear
chain reaction, has been concentrated to levels of 20 percent or more by
weight....continued at Scientific American Digital

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...


We have a cure for the energy problem. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! But the
enviro's got the building of same, outlawed.

No knee-jerk reactions, OK? Forget Yucca Mountain.

As it stands now, we are unable to control nuclear waste. I did not say
"dispose of". I said "CONTROL", meaning assure that is secured against
misuse. When we can do that, then MAYBE we can build nuclear power plants
the was Starbucks builds coffee shops.


Why worry about the control of the waste? There are so many former soviet
union nukes out there to be bought or stolen. Iran, North Korea rogue states
have nuclear plants making good, non-waste weapons grade product, that the
security of the waste is not as critical anymore. And how much waste are
you talking about? It is not like the left over from mining, that take up
miles of land. We already have lots of waste up by Chuck, that is trying to
leach into the Columbia. We have to move a lot of that to Yucca Mt. no
matter what. They can only solidify so much of the ground around the waste
containers. We have to have oil for a lot of the products we use, so there
still will have to be petroleum pumped, but we could cut our usage by
probably 75% by going fission nuclear for the present time. This would
remove a lot of the middle eastern bargaining chips as well as a huge amount
of money to them. And think what happens to the manufacturing base in
China, if we get cheap power. We could pay our people more than the
Chinese, and still be competitive. Not the $100k a year for an assembly
line flunky that HK thinks they require, but they would have a living wage.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...


We have a cure for the energy problem. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! But the
enviro's got the building of same, outlawed.

No knee-jerk reactions, OK? Forget Yucca Mountain.

As it stands now, we are unable to control nuclear waste. I did not say
"dispose of". I said "CONTROL", meaning assure that is secured against
misuse. When we can do that, then MAYBE we can build nuclear power plants
the was Starbucks builds coffee shops.


Why worry about the control of the waste?

Step 1) Grab a Kleenex and wipe the drool off your chin.

Step 2) On the way home, buy the February issue of Scientific American.

Step 3) Read the article on managing unsecured nuclear materials.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...


We have a cure for the energy problem. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! But the
enviro's got the building of same, outlawed.

No knee-jerk reactions, OK? Forget Yucca Mountain.

As it stands now, we are unable to control nuclear waste. I did not say
"dispose of". I said "CONTROL", meaning assure that is secured against
misuse. When we can do that, then MAYBE we can build nuclear power
plants the was Starbucks builds coffee shops.


Why worry about the control of the waste?

Step 1) Grab a Kleenex and wipe the drool off your chin.

Step 2) On the way home, buy the February issue of Scientific American.

Step 3) Read the article on managing unsecured nuclear materials.



Read the rest of the post you snipped!

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 06:30:20 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:


We have a cure for the energy problem. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! But the
enviro's got the building of same, outlawed.

Nuclear is not a cure. It may be part of the solution, but it is not a
cure. With new technologies, such as a Pebble Bed Reactor, safety
concerns have been eliminated or, at least, substantially reduced.
However, there is still nuclear waste to deal with. Burying waste in
Yucca Mountain is, essentially, sweeping it under the carpet. Also,
uranium reserves are finite. 50 years, or so, with present technologies,
but that would be expected to lengthen with more advanced technologies.
Nuclear could provide a solution for our lifetimes, but eventually it to
would end. We need to think in terms of sustainable energy.