On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:05:16 -0500, BAR wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:34:30 -0500, "D-unit" cof42_AT_embarqmail.com
wrote:

Im not going to go out a buy an electric car just yet.
Actually this is probably the golden age of the electric car. "Fuel"
is very cheap.
Once they actually get a significant number on the road they will be
separately metering your charger for the road tax and adding a
surcharge for the added electrical infrastructure they need to charge
millions of cars every night.


I still don't get it though. The energy to charge the batteries in an
electric car has to come from somewhere.
Hybrids are charged by the gas (oil) powered engine, along with supplements
of "regenerative braking", etc.

Plug in (to charge) electrics still derive their power from oil, as do
hybrids. So, where's the "green" thing?

Answer: Nuclear. But first we have to convert all the tree huggers.

You are getting a little to complicated for the tree huggers to
understand. Thinking in more than one dimension makes them fall over
like the pygmy goats.

Pygmy goats don't fall over.

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

You are thinking of fainting goats.

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

Damn - I am full of useless knowledge. :)

On Jan 28, 11:22Â*am, BAR wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Jan 28, 10:29�am, BAR wrote:

What are you doing to stop the Chinese and Indian's from using up all of
the remaining oil?

You're not serious, I hope.

Isn't the official position "Let the free market rule"?

We shouldn't take any organized action to cripple the economy of some
other country just so we can gas up our 12 mpg SUV's for another
couple of years. If the Chinese and Indians are willing to pay more
for the oil, I guess it flows their direction. New idea:
capitalism. :-)

But, we should do everything possible to hamstring and cripple our own
economy?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry, but I didn't see anybody recommending that. I was inquiring
about the statement "What are you doing to keep the Chinese and
Indians from burning all the oil".

I repeat my question: Isn't this a situation where free market
capitalism should prevail? (Let the country most willing to pay the
oilcos the most money get the oil). That would make Americans holding
stock in the oilcos very happy. Maybe some of that wealth will then
trickle down *to* those of us who are used to normally being trickled
*on*.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:05:16 -0500, BAR wrote:

Eisboch wrote:

Answer: Nuclear. But first we have to convert all the tree huggers.
You are getting a little to complicated for the tree huggers to
understand. Thinking in more than one dimension makes them fall over
like the pygmy goats.

Pygmy goats don't fall over.

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

You are thinking of fainting goats.

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

Damn - I am full of useless knowledge. :)

That was a funny episode of Dirty Jobs!

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Jan 28, 11:22 am, BAR wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Jan 28, 10:29�am, BAR wrote:
What are you doing to stop the Chinese and Indian's from using up all of
the remaining oil?
You're not serious, I hope.
Isn't the official position "Let the free market rule"?
We shouldn't take any organized action to cripple the economy of some
other country just so we can gas up our 12 mpg SUV's for another
couple of years. If the Chinese and Indians are willing to pay more
for the oil, I guess it flows their direction. New idea:
capitalism. :-)
But, we should do everything possible to hamstring and cripple our own
economy?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry, but I didn't see anybody recommending that. I was inquiring
about the statement "What are you doing to keep the Chinese and
Indians from burning all the oil".

I repeat my question: Isn't this a situation where free market
capitalism should prevail? (Let the country most willing to pay the
oilcos the most money get the oil). That would make Americans holding
stock in the oilcos very happy. Maybe some of that wealth will then
trickle down *to* those of us who are used to normally being trickled
*on*.

Yes, it is. And, when we have all of the oil left we can sell it for
$100 per bbl.

John wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:34:30 -0500, "D-unit" cof42_AT_embarqmail.com
wrote:

Im not going to go out a buy an electric car just yet.
Actually this is probably the golden age of the electric car. "Fuel"
is very cheap.
Once they actually get a significant number on the road they will be
separately metering your charger for the road tax and adding a
surcharge for the added electrical infrastructure they need to charge
millions of cars every night.

I still don't get it though. The energy to charge the batteries in an
electric car has to come from somewhere.
Hybrids are charged by the gas (oil) powered engine, along with
supplements of "regenerative braking", etc.

Plug in (to charge) electrics still derive their power from oil, as do
hybrids. So, where's the "green" thing?

Answer: Nuclear. But first we have to convert all the tree huggers.

Eisboch


LOL It is not the tree hugger that have a problem with nuclear, it is the
general population and the NIMBY attitude. Nobody wants a nuke generator
built in their county or on their lake. Nobody wants a used nuclear fuel
dump in their state. Now if you could convince your next door neighbor that
you should store spent nuclear rods in your city - maybe we could push
nuclear forward.




I live, oh, 25-30 miles, I would guess, from a nuclear powerplant. I
fish near it when I can. Other than the fact that my dick has grown
another six inches and its tip now glows in the dark, I haven't noticed
anything unusual.

Seriously, there is talk about building a second reactor on the site,
which I favor. It is good, clean power, and so long as the spent fuel
rods are stored in Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi, it is ok with me.
The local unions also favor it because they, of course, will get the work.

"HK" wrote in message ...
John wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:34:30 -0500, "D-unit" cof42_AT_embarqmail.com
wrote:

Im not going to go out a buy an electric car just yet.
Actually this is probably the golden age of the electric car. "Fuel"
is very cheap.
Once they actually get a significant number on the road they will be
separately metering your charger for the road tax and adding a
surcharge for the added electrical infrastructure they need to charge
millions of cars every night.

I still don't get it though. The energy to charge the batteries in an
electric car has to come from somewhere.
Hybrids are charged by the gas (oil) powered engine, along with
supplements of "regenerative braking", etc.

Plug in (to charge) electrics still derive their power from oil, as do
hybrids. So, where's the "green" thing?

Answer: Nuclear. But first we have to convert all the tree huggers.

Eisboch


LOL It is not the tree hugger that have a problem with nuclear, it is the
general population and the NIMBY attitude. Nobody wants a nuke generator
built in their county or on their lake. Nobody wants a used nuclear fuel
dump in their state. Now if you could convince your next door neighbor that
you should store spent nuclear rods in your city - maybe we could push
nuclear forward.




I live, oh, 25-30 miles, I would guess, from a nuclear powerplant. I
fish near it when I can. Other than the fact that my dick has grown
another six inches and its tip now glows in the dark, I haven't noticed
anything unusual.

Seriously, there is talk about building a second reactor on the site,
which I favor. It is good, clean power, and so long as the spent fuel
rods are stored in Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi, it is ok with me.
The local unions also favor it because they, of course, will get the work.


Its probably stored at the Harris plant. -like 10 miles from *my* back yard.
Progress Energy now has approval/permit to build another reactor with plans
to raise the lake level another 15 feet or so. (Don't know how they're
going to pull that one off, not alot of water around these days.)


We fish/boat/ski/swim in that lake. Hydrilla has taken over and keeps
the water quite clear.

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/pl.../hydrilla.html


Lots of big bass too. Some with extra tails..but hey who's counting? ;-)



db

On Jan 28, 7:29Â*pm, BAR wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Jan 28, 11:22 am, BAR wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Jan 28, 10:29�am, BAR wrote:
What are you doing to stop the Chinese and Indian's from using up all of
the remaining oil?
You're not serious, I hope.
Isn't the official position "Let the free market rule"?
We shouldn't take any organized action to cripple the economy of some
other country just so we can gas up our 12 mpg SUV's for another
couple of years. If the Chinese and Indians are willing to pay more
for the oil, I guess it flows their direction. New idea:
capitalism. :-)
But, we should do everything possible to hamstring and cripple our own
economy?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry, but I didn't see anybody recommending that. I was inquiring
about the statement "What are you doing to keep the Chinese and
Indians from burning all the oil".

I repeat my question: Isn't this a situation where free market
capitalism should prevail? (Let the country most willing to pay the
oilcos the most money get the oil). That would make Americans holding
stock in the oilcos very happy. Maybe some of that wealth will then
trickle down *to* those of us who are used to normally being trickled
*on*.

Yes, it is. And, when we have all of the oil left we can sell it for
$100 per bbl.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If taking control of "all the oil" means invading and occupying a
greater number of oil-producing countries I think that's simply a pipe
dream.
We've got our hands pretty well full with just one of those countries
now.
We don't have the troops, the budget, or the moral authority to
conquer the world just so we can continue putting relatively cheap gas
into decidedly inefficient personal transportation.

If we ever do get any oil out of Iraq, it should sell for about $500
bbl.
That would more closely approximate the actual cost of the occupation
required to "secure" the oil fields there.

"HK" wrote in message
...

John wrote:

LOL It is not the tree hugger that have a problem with nuclear, it is the
general population and the NIMBY attitude. Nobody wants a nuke generator
built in their county or on their lake. Nobody wants a used nuclear fuel
dump in their state. Now if you could convince your next door neighbor
that you should store spent nuclear rods in your city - maybe we could
push nuclear forward.



I live, oh, 25-30 miles, I would guess, from a nuclear powerplant. I fish
near it when I can. Other than the fact that my dick has grown another six
inches and its tip now glows in the dark, I haven't noticed anything
unusual.

Seriously, there is talk about building a second reactor on the site,
which I favor. It is good, clean power, and so long as the spent fuel rods
are stored in Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi, it is ok with me. The local
unions also favor it because they, of course, will get the work.


We live within 14 miles of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant (not a typo ...
that's how they spell it). The Pilgrim Plant, located in Plymouth is one of
the oldest, if not *the* oldest, continuously operating nuclear plant in the
US. Before 9/11 they maintained nice public walkways and grounds, including
fishing spots from the breakwater. Obviously they are now all closed. The
operating license expires in 2012 and an application to extend the license
until 2032 has been submitted but is being opposed, as usual, by the regular
group of anti-nuke activists. You know the type. Mostly women who wear
their hair in long braids, never shave their legs and make their own dresses
dyed with cranberry juice or squished blueberries.

All the spent fuel rods used since it began operation in 1972 remain stored
on site. There has never been a serious accident or event.

Eisboch

"John" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message



I live, oh, 25-30 miles, I would guess, from a nuclear powerplant. I fish
near it when I can. Other than the fact that my dick has grown another
six inches and its tip now glows in the dark, I haven't noticed anything
unusual.


LOL - send me some of that fish will ya?


Seriously, there is talk about building a second reactor on the site,
which I favor. It is good, clean power, and so long as the spent fuel
rods are stored in Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi, it is ok with me.


THAT IS the problem - nobody wants the old rods, they remain radioactive
for 200,000 years and would make a dandy terrorist dirty bomb.

Typical humanitarian response from Harry. "Not in my back yard" and "I got
mine, screw you" are examples of the poo that oozes uncontrollably from the
mind of Harry Krause.

"John" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
...

John wrote:

LOL It is not the tree hugger that have a problem with nuclear, it is
the general population and the NIMBY attitude. Nobody wants a nuke
generator built in their county or on their lake. Nobody wants a used
nuclear fuel dump in their state. Now if you could convince your next
door neighbor that you should store spent nuclear rods in your city -
maybe we could push nuclear forward.



I live, oh, 25-30 miles, I would guess, from a nuclear powerplant. I
fish near it when I can. Other than the fact that my dick has grown
another six inches and its tip now glows in the dark, I haven't noticed
anything unusual.

Seriously, there is talk about building a second reactor on the site,
which I favor. It is good, clean power, and so long as the spent fuel
rods are stored in Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi, it is ok with me.
The local unions also favor it because they, of course, will get the
work.


We live within 14 miles of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant (not a typo
... that's how they spell it). The Pilgrim Plant, located in Plymouth is
one of the oldest, if not *the* oldest, continuously operating nuclear
plant in the US. Before 9/11 they maintained nice public walkways and
grounds, including fishing spots from the breakwater. Obviously they are
now all closed. The operating license expires in 2012 and an application
to extend the license until 2032 has been submitted but is being opposed,
as usual, by the regular group of anti-nuke activists. You know the
type. Mostly women who wear their hair in long braids, never shave their
legs and make their own dresses dyed with cranberry juice or squished
blueberries.


Ya the ones that I went to elementary school with, back when they made us
practice air raid drills weekly - and made you say the pledge of
allegiance daily....
Funny how when you are taught as a child to be afraid of nukes - it sticks
with you.


All the spent fuel rods used since it began operation in 1972 remain
stored on site. There has never been a serious accident or event.

Eisboch


Thank God.
Read the book "We almost lost Detroit" True story of a near meltdown at
the Fermi plant. That tower is now a monument to how close a nuclear melt
down came, it is now completely filled with concrete to contain it.

http://www.amazon.com/Almost-Lost-De.../dp/0425067009



Fortunately, that accident was related to one, unique and obsolete design
that is not used anywhere else in the US, as I understand it.

Eisboch