View Single Post
  #87   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
dpb dpb is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,595
Default 1950s Chest Freezer Refurbish

wrote:
....
we have on us soil a couple thousand year supply of coal.........

isnt that enough for you?


Well, ignoring CO2 and other emissions now, are you?

I'm fine w/ fossil-fired units as long as they're not wasting oil and
natural gas as we currently are (both of which are far too valuable to
be frittered away on central-station generation).

But, if the greenhouse gas argument has any legs at all, there's only
one real alternative, and that is nuclear. (I know, there's
solar/wind/geothermal/tidal/..., but none of those has the facility to
replace large central-station generation 24/7 at anyways near the
capacity required.)

If you think the Chernobyl pictures are a problem, look at the air
pollution problems China and India are making from their fossil-fired
generation and consider that impact as they continue to build at the
rate they are. And, while considering, consider that whatever we do in
the US isn't going to make any difference whatsoever in their
governments' policies of what is in their best short term interests.

So, if you want to make any positive impact whatsoever, you had best get
on the nuclear bandwagon--it's the only real alternative. What may
happen in another 20-50 years for C sequestration and all is hard to
guess, but my personal opinion is it is at least that long before
there's any hope of any of the currently-proposed technologies being
large-scale viable at anything close to competitive costs. Meanwhile,
we already know how to build and operate safe, cost-competitive nuclear
power plants -- all we need is to do it.

arent you the one who claimed chernobyl only killed one city, yet this
proves the dead area is very large....


IF YOU"RE GOING TO KEEP CLAIMING THIS AT LEAST GO BACK AND FIND WHERE IT
WAS AND DO THE COMPLAINING TO THE PERPETRATOR.


....

no one says how long term storage will be paid for a yucca mountain is
no guarantee


The costs are paid by the fund the nuclear utilities contribute to --
this has been pointed out to you previously.

Yucca Mountain is no guarantee for what? It is what it is -- a
temporary storage facility until the US finally gets off its duff and
begins to reprocess fuel and make use of the vast resource we're now
just sitting on.

This again is not a technical challenge, it's a political problem
created by folks like you who have no solutions, only complaints, most
of them as ludicrous as the arguments you've tried to make here.

--