Calif Bill wrote:
"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:rPTph.34$My1.33@trndny03...
JimH wrote:
......going down. Under $2/gallon on the street at some places here.

Election time must be coming up...........oops..........that happened
last November. ;-)

For Chuck:......gasoline - boats.........gasoline - tow vehicles. Just a
preemptive strike to keep the head sheriff from interrogating me. ;-)


$2.79 here, it's a bargain though, just wait a decade or two.

Lowering the price is easy, just use less of it, nobody is forcing anyone
to buy gas.

Work and life forces people to buy gas. If we had built lots of nuclear
plants over the last 20 years, our demand on foreign oil would be almost
zero. Thank a lot of the enviros for the oil problems.


And don't forget to thank Three Mile *ISLAND* (boating tie-in for
JimH) and that catastrophic meltdown in Russia for demonstrating that
nuclear power has some very scary aspects attached. Can you name even
one state that is willing to accept the nuclear waste
generated anywhere else? Does it make sense to manufacture something
that will be immensely deadly for tens of thousands of years after its
brief initial productive use? We've got a case of creeping death over
in Eastern Wa right this very minute. Failing containment tanks on the
Hanford Nuclear Reservation are allowing radioactive waste to migrate
toward a nearby watershed and could potentially render much of the
North Pacific unusable as a source or food for human beings. Send a few
hundred tankers up from California if you think nuclear waste is no big
deal. We'll fill em up for you, free of charge. :-)

At one time, we almost had a series of nuclear plants built here in
Washington State. Known as the WPPS (or "woops" project). The project
went into default, and cost a lot of bondholders a bunch of dough. The
facts are the the project didn't fail due to "enviro" opposition, but
rather because it became apparent that when the projects were completed
they would not be able to produce electricity at a competitive price.

I'm pretty "green", without being ridiculous about it. I think we need
to make prudent use of our natural resources, including oil. We own a
hybrid car and one 4-cylinder conventional.
We endeavor to not use energy foolishly, and will turn the heat and
lights off when we leave the house for even a few hours. However, we do
own a boat....... and nobody who owns a boat that doesn't rely strictly
upon sails or oars can get too far up on a high horse regarding the
careful use of fossil fuel.

On 12 Jan 2007 16:58:14 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


Calif Bill wrote:
"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:rPTph.34$My1.33@trndny03...
JimH wrote:
......going down. Under $2/gallon on the street at some places here.

Election time must be coming up...........oops..........that happened
last November. ;-)

For Chuck:......gasoline - boats.........gasoline - tow vehicles. Just a
preemptive strike to keep the head sheriff from interrogating me. ;-)


$2.79 here, it's a bargain though, just wait a decade or two.

Lowering the price is easy, just use less of it, nobody is forcing anyone
to buy gas.

Work and life forces people to buy gas. If we had built lots of nuclear
plants over the last 20 years, our demand on foreign oil would be almost
zero. Thank a lot of the enviros for the oil problems.


And don't forget to thank Three Mile *ISLAND* (boating tie-in for
JimH) and that catastrophic meltdown in Russia for demonstrating that
nuclear power has some very scary aspects attached. Can you name even
one state that is willing to accept the nuclear waste
generated anywhere else? Does it make sense to manufacture something
that will be immensely deadly for tens of thousands of years after its
brief initial productive use? We've got a case of creeping death over
in Eastern Wa right this very minute. Failing containment tanks on the
Hanford Nuclear Reservation are allowing radioactive waste to migrate
toward a nearby watershed and could potentially render much of the
North Pacific unusable as a source or food for human beings. Send a few
hundred tankers up from California if you think nuclear waste is no big
deal. We'll fill em up for you, free of charge. :-)

At one time, we almost had a series of nuclear plants built here in
Washington State. Known as the WPPS (or "woops" project). The project
went into default, and cost a lot of bondholders a bunch of dough. The
facts are the the project didn't fail due to "enviro" opposition, but
rather because it became apparent that when the projects were completed
they would not be able to produce electricity at a competitive price.

I'm pretty "green", without being ridiculous about it. I think we need
to make prudent use of our natural resources, including oil. We own a
hybrid car and one 4-cylinder conventional.
We endeavor to not use energy foolishly, and will turn the heat and
lights off when we leave the house for even a few hours. However, we do
own a boat....... and nobody who owns a boat that doesn't rely strictly
upon sails or oars can get too far up on a high horse regarding the
careful use of fossil fuel.

Hey Chuck, your three mile island and chernobyl comparisons are crap. Just
ask the French, who somehow manage to get about 80% of their energy from
nuke power.
--
******************************************
***** Have a super day! *****
******************************************

John H

JohnH wrote:


Hey Chuck, your three mile island and chernobyl comparisons are crap. Just
ask the French, who somehow manage to get about 80% of their energy from
nuke power.
--
******************************************
***** Have a super day! *****
******************************************

John H

What's this? Are the French suddenly back on the good guy side of the
ledger? :-)

Two comments:

1. What do the do with the waste? Is it really all that safe, or have
they luckily so far avoided paying the piper?

2. Until we invent cars, trucks, trains, and BOATS that run efficiently
on electricity and storage batteries we will still need to import most
of our energy for transportation needs. I don't think we burn that muh
crude oil to generate electricity as it is.

Chuck Gould wrote:
Can you name even
one state that is willing to accept the nuclear waste generated anywhere else?

Jersey?

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:rPTph.34$My1.33@trndny03...
JimH wrote:
......going down. Under $2/gallon on the street at some places here.

Election time must be coming up...........oops..........that happened
last November. ;-)

For Chuck:......gasoline - boats.........gasoline - tow vehicles.
Just a
preemptive strike to keep the head sheriff from interrogating me. ;-)


$2.79 here, it's a bargain though, just wait a decade or two.

Lowering the price is easy, just use less of it, nobody is forcing
anyone
to buy gas.

Work and life forces people to buy gas. If we had built lots of nuclear
plants over the last 20 years, our demand on foreign oil would be almost
zero. Thank a lot of the enviros for the oil problems.


And don't forget to thank Three Mile *ISLAND* (boating tie-in for
JimH) and that catastrophic meltdown in Russia for demonstrating that
nuclear power has some very scary aspects attached. Can you name even
one state that is willing to accept the nuclear waste
generated anywhere else? Does it make sense to manufacture something
that will be immensely deadly for tens of thousands of years after its
brief initial productive use? We've got a case of creeping death over
in Eastern Wa right this very minute. Failing containment tanks on the
Hanford Nuclear Reservation are allowing radioactive waste to migrate
toward a nearby watershed and could potentially render much of the
North Pacific unusable as a source or food for human beings. Send a few
hundred tankers up from California if you think nuclear waste is no big
deal. We'll fill em up for you, free of charge. :-)

At one time, we almost had a series of nuclear plants built here in
Washington State. Known as the WPPS (or "woops" project). The project
went into default, and cost a lot of bondholders a bunch of dough. The
facts are the the project didn't fail due to "enviro" opposition, but
rather because it became apparent that when the projects were completed
they would not be able to produce electricity at a competitive price.

I'm pretty "green", without being ridiculous about it. I think we need
to make prudent use of our natural resources, including oil. We own a
hybrid car and one 4-cylinder conventional.
We endeavor to not use energy foolishly, and will turn the heat and
lights off when we leave the house for even a few hours. However, we do
own a boat....... and nobody who owns a boat that doesn't rely strictly
upon sails or oars can get too far up on a high horse regarding the
careful use of fossil fuel.


And the WPPS bond holders were screwed by the courts and states. Being one
of the class. A set of states enters into the bond agreement and then
decide that was not legal? BS, they have lots of attorneys on staff to
review it. The Russian meltdown was a crappy design and 3 mile island
leaked nada. The containment vessel did it's job. Hanford and we have
friends who are engineers there was a bad design in a bad location for
military waste. Move it to desert land and the waste we are talking about
is not copius quantities. Coal mining and coal fired plants release about
17 tons of Uranium into the atmosophere every year, plus all the mercury and
other heavy metals and causing acid rain. Plus how many deaths a year from
coal mining and oil drilling (exclude war)? Nuclear is the only thing we
have going for us to reduce oil usage and supply us with clean energy. How
much oil is in that boat that runs on wind power? Lots! sails, resin, etc.
And most are not complaining about just oil wasting on recreation. Most
burn very little oil for boating compared to the rest of their lifestyle.
Commuting to work, heating, cookiing and the supply of food to cook takes
lots of oil. Supply that energy to heat and cook via electric from nuclear
plants or wind power or water power and there will be a huge reduction of
oil usage! YOu could even supply most of the commuting power via small 80
mile range pure electric vehicles. Pure electrics now use more energy than
hybrids. Line loss and charging losses add up to big numbers. Nuclear,
which we have about a 300 million year supply of fuel for, would allow us
those inefficiencies and still be a viable source of energy and
transportation.

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 20:19:12 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
roups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:rPTph.34$My1.33@trndny03...
JimH wrote:
......going down. Under $2/gallon on the street at some places here.

Election time must be coming up...........oops..........that happened
last November. ;-)

For Chuck:......gasoline - boats.........gasoline - tow vehicles.
Just a
preemptive strike to keep the head sheriff from interrogating me. ;-)


$2.79 here, it's a bargain though, just wait a decade or two.

Lowering the price is easy, just use less of it, nobody is forcing
anyone
to buy gas.

Work and life forces people to buy gas. If we had built lots of nuclear
plants over the last 20 years, our demand on foreign oil would be almost
zero. Thank a lot of the enviros for the oil problems.


And don't forget to thank Three Mile *ISLAND* (boating tie-in for
JimH) and that catastrophic meltdown in Russia for demonstrating that
nuclear power has some very scary aspects attached. Can you name even
one state that is willing to accept the nuclear waste
generated anywhere else? Does it make sense to manufacture something
that will be immensely deadly for tens of thousands of years after its
brief initial productive use? We've got a case of creeping death over
in Eastern Wa right this very minute. Failing containment tanks on the
Hanford Nuclear Reservation are allowing radioactive waste to migrate
toward a nearby watershed and could potentially render much of the
North Pacific unusable as a source or food for human beings. Send a few
hundred tankers up from California if you think nuclear waste is no big
deal. We'll fill em up for you, free of charge. :-)

At one time, we almost had a series of nuclear plants built here in
Washington State. Known as the WPPS (or "woops" project). The project
went into default, and cost a lot of bondholders a bunch of dough. The
facts are the the project didn't fail due to "enviro" opposition, but
rather because it became apparent that when the projects were completed
they would not be able to produce electricity at a competitive price.

I'm pretty "green", without being ridiculous about it. I think we need
to make prudent use of our natural resources, including oil. We own a
hybrid car and one 4-cylinder conventional.
We endeavor to not use energy foolishly, and will turn the heat and
lights off when we leave the house for even a few hours. However, we do
own a boat....... and nobody who owns a boat that doesn't rely strictly
upon sails or oars can get too far up on a high horse regarding the
careful use of fossil fuel.


And the WPPS bond holders were screwed by the courts and states. Being one
of the class. A set of states enters into the bond agreement and then
decide that was not legal? BS, they have lots of attorneys on staff to
review it. The Russian meltdown was a crappy design and 3 mile island
leaked nada. The containment vessel did it's job. Hanford and we have
friends who are engineers there was a bad design in a bad location for
military waste. Move it to desert land and the waste we are talking about
is not copius quantities. Coal mining and coal fired plants release about
17 tons of Uranium into the atmosophere every year, plus all the mercury and
other heavy metals and causing acid rain. Plus how many deaths a year from
coal mining and oil drilling (exclude war)? Nuclear is the only thing we
have going for us to reduce oil usage and supply us with clean energy. How
much oil is in that boat that runs on wind power? Lots! sails, resin, etc.
And most are not complaining about just oil wasting on recreation. Most
burn very little oil for boating compared to the rest of their lifestyle.
Commuting to work, heating, cookiing and the supply of food to cook takes
lots of oil. Supply that energy to heat and cook via electric from nuclear
plants or wind power or water power and there will be a huge reduction of
oil usage! YOu could even supply most of the commuting power via small 80
mile range pure electric vehicles. Pure electrics now use more energy than
hybrids. Line loss and charging losses add up to big numbers. Nuclear,
which we have about a 300 million year supply of fuel for, would allow us
those inefficiencies and still be a viable source of energy and
transportation.


Lots of those folks don't want to hear about coal waste. I wonder why the
waste doesn't seem to overwhelm the French?

$201.9 this morning.

looking better!



JimH wrote:
......going down. Under $2/gallon on the street at some places here.

Election time must be coming up...........oops..........that happened last
November. ;-)

For Chuck:......gasoline - boats.........gasoline - tow vehicles. Just a
preemptive strike to keep the head sheriff from interrogating me. ;-)

Tim wrote:
$201.9 this morning.

looking better!


How do you rate? That's $1.02 cheaper than I paid this morning for 92
octane. $3.03.

Maybe it's a political conspiracy. Do you live in a red state? (JUST
KIDDING!!!)

My horseback guess: $3.50 ashore during peak summer vacation season
this year.
$5 at the fuel dock. I would *love* to be totally wrong on this.

Chuck Gould wrote:
Tim wrote:
$201.9 this morning.

looking better!


How do you rate? That's $1.02 cheaper than I paid this morning for 92
octane. $3.03.
My horseback guess: $3.50 ashore during peak summer vacation season
this year.
$5 at the fuel dock. I would *love* to be totally wrong on this.

Blue state (Illinois)

But some here are paying less than 2 bucks a gal.

Chuck, do you have some pretty heavy tax on fuel up there?

Tim wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
Tim wrote:
$201.9 this morning.

looking better!


How do you rate? That's $1.02 cheaper than I paid this morning for 92
octane. $3.03.
My horseback guess: $3.50 ashore during peak summer vacation season
this year.
$5 at the fuel dock. I would *love* to be totally wrong on this.

Blue state (Illinois)

But some here are paying less than 2 bucks a gal.

Chuck, do you have some pretty heavy tax on fuel up there?


According to this chart:

http://www.dekalbcounty-il.com/comparegasolinetax.htm

Our gas tax is 6 cents per gallon more than yours. Certainly wouldn't
account for $1 difference in price, although if that $2 price is for
unleaded regular it's only about 75-80 cents less than a typical
station around here. Still that's an enormous difference, when
considered as a percentage. Either our prices will soon be coming down,
or the midwest is
getting some sort of temporary special treatment in fuel prices.