In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:



What about the fact that it's right thing to do? It didn't happen overnight,
either. There was advertising involved.
Minority probabaly do it because of that. Like most everything else
in life.


By the way, it is NOT free.

Where it is successful, generally it is free to the person doing the
recycling. Taxes may be involved, but it is the actual out-of-pocket
(or more precisely the lack thereof) that is the main constraining
veriable where it makes any kind of real impact.

On Dec 25, 8:11*am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

...





In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

I
*I wonder how much of that statement is based on the assumption that
the CFLs are going to be gotten rid of the way they should be, which
is
not likely to be the way they are.

* I was talking about if all of the mercury in the CFLs got into the
environment, as if the worn-out CFLs are all ground up and incinerated
in
bonfires.

* *Interesting. Would you have a cite or two, I haven't seen anything
like that and would like to read them. Thanks.

If your county has a web site, you might find some links there.

* * * * * About all I can find on my county, the big city nearby and
state websites (as well as the EPAs) is what the proper ways to dispose
of the CFLs. Nothing on the local and nothing I can find right off on
the EPA on the question of how they came to that conclusion. It may very
well be correct, I'm just saying I can't find anything right off to back
it up. Until then it is a rumor (g).

Currently, and into the foreseeable future, the EPA is not a reliable source
for environmental information.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This comment is really special coming from a guy that in another part
of this thread posted a link to an article that used OPEC, officials
in India, and the secretary of state of MA as credible sources pinning
the high price of oil on speculators. LOL

wrote in message
...
On Dec 25, 8:11 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

...





In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

I
I wonder how much of that statement is based on the assumption
that
the CFLs are going to be gotten rid of the way they should be,
which
is
not likely to be the way they are.

I was talking about if all of the mercury in the CFLs got into the
environment, as if the worn-out CFLs are all ground up and
incinerated
in
bonfires.

Interesting. Would you have a cite or two, I haven't seen anything
like that and would like to read them. Thanks.

If your county has a web site, you might find some links there.

About all I can find on my county, the big city nearby and
state websites (as well as the EPAs) is what the proper ways to dispose
of the CFLs. Nothing on the local and nothing I can find right off on
the EPA on the question of how they came to that conclusion. It may very
well be correct, I'm just saying I can't find anything right off to back
it up. Until then it is a rumor (g).

Currently, and into the foreseeable future, the EPA is not a reliable
source
for environmental information.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This comment is really special coming from a guy that in another part
of this thread posted a link to an article that used OPEC, officials
in India, and the secretary of state of MA as credible sources pinning
the high price of oil on speculators. LOL

++++++++++++++++++++++


I'm absolutely positive that everyone in that article was more qualified
than you are to comment on the subject in question.

Jim Yanik wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in :

Jim Yanik wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in
:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Then they want us to convert to electric autos...
Using nuclear power plants will eliminate even more mercury
emissions.

Not to complicate the issue, but a number of arms control
experts have pointed out that there's only one way we'll stop
"rogue states" from eventually developing nuclear weapons:
Eliminate civilian nuclear power plants.

Every benefit comes with a hidden horror show.

As empty and bogus an argument by the anti-nuke propagandists as
there is. Development of nuclear weapons by a "rogue state" in no
way depends on the presence of civilian nuclear power plants.


No, it doesn't depend on civilian facilities. However, as you are
now well aware, fuel from civilian plants can (and has been) turned
into fuel suitable for nuclear weapons. The presence of a "legal"
civilian facility eliminates the need to shop around for a fuel
source.

Please don't continue to dispute these facts. You are about to look
silly.

Just to mention it in passing, the original suggestion of the use
of
nukes for electricity was in the US. I would doubt that one or two
more legal civilian facilities within those borders woudl have a big
impact on proliferation. The original discussion was supposed to be
about the US using more nuclear power.

Yep, cheap, clean, safe, non polluting, non greenhouse gas releasing
nuclear power - power that could be used to replace a good deal of our
current oil use and bring us a lot closer to energy self sufficiency.
With the additional side benefit of eliminating all the daily
pollution from coal and nat gas fired power plants *now*, instead of
30 years from now when we might have some of the renewable energy
sources improved enough to make a real impact.


I wonder if we could somehow use nuclear power plants to make the coal-
gasoline conversion process more economical and practical?
Then we could employ our vast coal deposits to run our autos.

It would be better if we could utilize the nuclear generated electricity
in a more environmentally friendly way such as providing charging power
for electric cars and plug in hybrids, and producing hydrogen for the
combustion side of the hybrids and for non hybrid vehicles. And of
course eventually transition from nuclear generated electricity and onto
renewable generated electricity once the renewable are viable in large
scale.


That would be great,EXCEPT that battery storage is not good enough to be
really practical yet.

That's sort of my point, if you provide free electricity from those
nukes for charging EVs / PIHs *everywhere* so you can drive your PIH 10
miles to the store and plug it in in the parking space while you shop,
replacing much of the electricity used on the trip there, then the range
issues would be less of a problem and more people would be able to
effectively use EVs or PIHs.

Although I've read Toshiba has come out with a new Li-ion battery that
recharges to 90% in 10 minutes. That could make a difference.

Battery technology continues to improve, but just not fast enough. If
batteries improved at the rate that hard drives do, we'd all be driving
electric SUVs with 500+ mile range, great performance and 10 minute
recharges.


Also,hydrogen storage for autos is in even worse shape.
So far,nothing beats gasoline/diesel for autos,and that's where our
vulnerability is,WRT the Middle East;petroleum.

It's hard to beat the hydrocarbons for energy density, but if there were
hydrogen fueling stations at even 1/4 of the density of current gas
stations it would be pretty viable for general use. I recall seeing a
piece on TV about a relatively compact and efficient hydrogen production
unit that combined with cheap power from the nukes (and eventually RE
when it catches up) would make hydrogen a viable replacement for a large
percentage of vehicles. Commercial vehicles are particularly good for a
hydrogen alternative since they travel pretty well defined routes making
it easy to insure they stay within range of a fueling station. City
busses and UPS trucks commonly use CNG currently and do just fine.


using nuclear power for our electric generation is a no-brainer.

Certainly it is the only technology that is a viable replacement for all
our coal and NG electric generation currently. It can eliminate a huge
amount of emissions now and provide a few decades breathing room to
improve and deploy RE technologies to eventually replace it.

CJT wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

I think now is not likely. Even if we magically licensed a nuke
plant tomorrow, it would still take 2-3 years to build it and bring it
online. We would probably be hard pressed to take a current plant off
line because of growth in demand in the interim. And that 2-3 year
thing ain't gonna happen since we aren't going to magically license
nuke plants any time soon. Heck just the enviornmental impact
statement can take a year or so to put together, let alone argue.

A YEAR? Think FIVE YEARS and ten years to build it.

A few years ago a gas-fired plant was proposed in my area. It would have a
3/4 mile long discharge canal connecting the cooling basin to the bay.

The environmentalists went nuts. "THERMAL POLLUTION" they cried. It would
kill all the marine life from Houston south to Mexico and 100 miles into the
Gulf! Four years of to-ing and fro-ing before construction began.

Plant eventually got built. Now the discharge canal is lined shoulder to
shoulder with fishermen. Seems as if the marine critters that like warmer
water (mostly shrimp) head for the canal. The fish who like to eat shrimp
follow. Creatures who don't like warm water move away - to Canada, I guess.


That points out one of the major issues with our broken legal system -
the fact that the eco-loons making the false claims and filing the
frivolous lawsuits are never held liable for the harm they cause. If
they were held liable for their proven false claims their plague would
soon end and the true sane environmentalists would regain some
credibility.

In case you didn't notice, the corporate loons are never held
accountable for damage THEY do based on falsehoods about all
the good and minimal harm their pet projects will do. Just look
at how many SuperFund sites there are. Some of the companies
manage to just walk away. Others go bankrupt (even as the people
in charge start another company to repeat the cycle).

When was the last super fund site created (not designated)? That is old
news and has little to do with current practices. Rather like the anti
ANWR drilling loon insist drilling would destroy ANWR while the reality
is that a few small sites along the perimeter using current directional
drilling technology could tap ANWR with essentially no impact. Same with
the anti logging loons where the old clear cut mess went away long ago
and we now have selective helicopter logging with no logging roads at
all.

dpb wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
dpb wrote:
Pete C. wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:
...
how do you supply power when the sun goes down,if there are no batteries to
store the excess power generated by the solar panels?
Wind generators typically go quiet at night,too.
BTW, I just looked at the Gray County (KS) wind farm production data.
Since initial startup mid-2001 thru mid-2007, they have averaged only
40% capacity factor w/ a high month of less than 60% and several months
of only 20%. That implies from 2.5X to 5X the required generation even
to get the output which still would be awfully expensive to have such
excess installed capacity. Wind has some benefits, but it can't replace
baseload generation in large quantites w/o very high excess capacity at
other times. This facility is in W KS, one of the highest wind energy
potential areas in the US.

I've driven past some relatively huge wind turbine farms in west TX and
they sure didn't seem to be anywhere near full production either. Wind
certainly isn't the answer by itself, but it can certainly contribute to
the total.

The (continental) US spans a few time zones so that gives some spread,
It's still dark where it's dark when it's dark and those folks need
lights when it's dark, not while the sun's shining...

I understand what you think you would be doing there, but while haven't
done actual calculations, one problem is that you're adding even more
requirements for transmission during those dark times or still require
other generation facilities.

No single solution, a lot of different sources need to be adding power
to the grid in a lot of different places. If we can get better storage
technology than current batteries that will solve a lot of problems,
including EV range or lack thereof.

and hydro and tidal should go a long way towards filling in the night.
Add in locally viable items like biomass in big farm / ranch areas,
geothermal in the few areas where that works, some storage such as
pumped hydro and CAS to store surplus production during peak times ...
Certainly hydro, tidal and pumped storage have very limited geographical
constraints. I don't recognize "CAS".

Hydro and tidal generation are geographically limited, but a have a lot
of energy available and should be significant contributors to the total.
CAS is compressed air storage, same basic idea as pumped hydro storage,
compress air with off peak excess and run back through a turbine on
peak.

There are very few significant hydro locations undeveloped in the US.
OK, I know of CAS now that you remind me -- it's small potatoes kind of
solution.

Wind is a "fill-in" but I don't see it ever being practical as a
large-scale replacement as it is simply too costly to build the required
alternate source since it isn't reliable (enough).

The fundamental answer to electrical generation is nuclear.

Nuke is certainly the short term solution. Hopefully in the few decades
of breathing room nukes would provide storage technology would improve
enough to solve the problem of the intermittent nature of most RE
sources.

Jim Yanik wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in
:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:

We certainly won't get there with the status quo. Something like
an executive order that we'll be energy independent in 5 years
with the weight to quash all the NIMBY and Eco-Loon attempts to
prevent it.

Good luck. Little of that would be constitutionally valid to
overturn
as an EO since it is based on laws passed by Congress, at the
minimum bringing up sepatation of powers.

Well, since something like that will never happen, the exact
logistics don't really matter.



What I want to see is a comprehensive push starting with new
nukes to allow the shutdown of the coal and NG plants and stop
all that pollution, provide cheap electricity for electric and
plug in hybrid cars and electric commuter rail and busses and
home heating and cooling.
Which brings up the rather creative accounting for "clean"
electric
cars where they look at tailpipe admissions and studiously ignore
the extra electricity that has to be generated.

But I digress (g)

On my various business visits to San Francisco, I've note the
fraudulent claim of "Zero emissions vehicle" on the electric
busses, which are in fact "Remote emissions vehicles".


Use the freed up US NG and US oil to keep other transportation
going without foreign oil. Improve conservation as much as
possible. Get realistic renewable sources, including distributed
solar and wind generation online (again quashing NIBMY and
Eco-Loon nonsense) over a reasonable period of time so that in
30 years when those nukes are reaching retirement they can be
retires and we can by on entirely renewables.

I am not all that sanguine about real life solar and wind
generation
as a viable major contributor. The solar cells have to too big and
wind generation takes too much space and both are fairly polluting
on the making of the cells or turbines. Might be useful at the
margins, but I am not all that sold for large scale applications.
Although even the marginal stuff would keep the growing part
of
the demand at bay, as it were.

This is why I specified "distributed solar" (and wind where
applicable), i.e. panels installed on existing rooftops. Basically
something like a utility supplied and maintained battery less grid
tie system. Trying to do utility scale solar any other way just
isn't practical and has huge environmental impact. Distributed
across customer's rooftops it uses no new space and also greatly
extends the service life of the already overtaxed grid by producing
a good portion of the power locally.

how do you supply power when the sun goes down,if there are no
batteries to store the excess power generated by the solar panels?
Wind generators typically go quiet at night,too.

The (continental) US spans a few time zones so that gives some spread,
and hydro and tidal should go a long way towards filling in the night.
Add in locally viable items like biomass in big farm / ranch areas,

Why bother with biomass when nuclear power works so well?

geothermal in the few areas where that works, some storage such as
pumped hydro and CAS to store surplus production during peak times and
you'll be in better shape. Some time of day rate breaks can also help
encourage utilization during off peak times and local energy storage
as appropriate.


All this adds unneeded complexity to our power generation,while nuclear
power simplifies it greatly.
Use modern,modular reactors,not the old cusotm-built light-water reactors.

Nuclear energy is "green" energy, but it is not renewable. We should
certainly be using nuclear *now* to eliminate all the environmental
damage from the current coal/NG/oil energy sources, but we should still
be working towards all renewable sources for the future.

Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , Jim Yanik wrote:
(Don Klipstein) wrote in
:


Plutonium comes from breeder reactors.
Not all of it.

Most nuclear power plants are not breeder reactors.
No,but the spent fuel rods still contain usable amounts of PU.

I do remember from back in the late 1970's and around 1980 that the
anti-nukers complained even-more against breeder reactors on basis that
those made plutonium useful for making bombs and non-breeder ones did not.

Are non-breeders safe in this respect or is another old lie by 1970's
anti-nukers being exposed now?

If not a lie, certainly a leading omission of "the rest of the story".
Pu is generated by neutron capture. As noted before, the real
difference between a breeder reactor and an "ordinary" reactor is that
the breeder includes material specifically for this capture and by that
inclusion the overall fuel cycle ends up w/ more _total_ fissile
material than was in the initial fuel loading -- hence the term
breeder--it "bred" fuel. In a non-breeder, that extra material isn't
there, so overall more fissile material is consumed than generated (or
in some cases the "breeding ratio" might approach unity).

The initial commercial LWR fuel cycles in the US were designed with the
thought we would have reprocessing facilities available to make use of
what fissile Pu was produced, but under Carter the NRC was told to not
consider the licensing application of GE for their proposed reprocessing
plant, thus leaving us in the present mess of an "open" instead of
"closed" fuel cycle and the problem of spent fuel storage. This
decision was based on his (Carter's) apparent inability to distinguish
intellectually between commercial and weapons-grade material and his
overly optimistic hope that by setting the example in the US of not
recycling would somehow be influential in other nations' decisions as to
whether they would or would not reprocess fuel on their own. As is
clear, it didn't do anything at all to discourage others and did quite a
lot of harm to our own ability to efficiently use our own resources. We
seem to do a lot of that sort of thing (draw weapon, shoot self in foot,
that is).

--

In , Kurt
Ullman wrote:
In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

I
I wonder how much of that statement is based on the assumption that
the CFLs are going to be gotten rid of the way they should be, which is
not likely to be the way they are.


I was talking about if all of the mercury in the CFLs got into the
environment, as if the worn-out CFLs are all ground up and incinerated in
bonfires.

Interesting. Would you have a cite or two, I haven't seen anything
like that and would like to read them. Thanks.

I did my work in an older Usenet posting, which can be turned up by
Google by pasting this (split into 2 lines by my Unix shell account
newsreader):

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.h...thread/thread/
606a0b6eec7c094d/a5f4d2ab5014d3e5?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#a5f4d2ab5014d3e5

There I showed calculations indicating that replacing a 60 watt
incandescent with a 15 watt CFL for 4,000 hours, if done in a location
where saving electricity saves burning of coal, saves burning of 77 kg of
coal (514 KWH of chemical energy). I post there assumptions of 35%
combined generating and transmission efficiency.

In my posting there, I do cite the Wiki article on coal, and also:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...5/ai_n13641513

(indicates that 77 kg of coal has 5.4 to 18.5 mg of mercury)

and

http://www.epa.state.il.us/air/cair/documents/021406/

(indicates that "median coal" (my words) with 514 KWH of chemical energy
has 14 mg of mercury.

So, if half of our electricity comes from coal, replacing a 60 watt
incandescent with a 15 watt CFL reduces mercury pollution by 7 mg on
average. Average CFLs have about 3-4 mg of mercury.

- Don Klipstein )

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Physically building the bomb itself isn't very complicated.
Please issue a "spew warning" before posting such humor.

If not the most ignorant statement I've read in a *LONG* time, it is
certainly
among the funniest.

People who know what they're talking about would disagree with your view on
this issue. If I knew you were going to happen along, I would've jotted down
the names of experts who were interviewed just after the latest intelligence
stinker about Iran's nuclear capabilities. They all said that refining the
fuel was a bitch, but bomb design was the easiest part.
....

I suspect you're not interpreting what they _really_ said quite right
although I don't have a clue as to what or to whom specifically you're
referring (other than the general gist of the report (that is now also
not necessarily looking to be all that intelligent from what I hear more
recently) I've not read much detail.)

Anyway, the basics of rudimentary technology for separation isn't that
difficult, either -- it's the details of the efficiency of how to do it
in large quantities with "only" hundreds or low-thousands of centrifuges
as opposed to 10's of thousands in order to obtain sufficient
weapons-grade material in a relatively short time.

Similar story w/ weapons manufacture -- to utilize limited amounts of
material efficiently is a pretty good trick -- if one had lots of
material, a crude weapon is indeed relatively straightforward.

--

In , JoeSpareBedroom wrote in part:

As far as mass transport being foisted on people, do you know anyone who
takes the train into Manhattan to get to work?

I didn't think so.

I dopn't live or work in Manhattan, so I don't know anyone there, but I
have been there a few times during rush hour, and I have seen those
trains. They do fill up.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , CJT wrote:

No. In fact, we should use up THEIR oil first.

And they should charge us much more for that privilege
than they do currently.

Why?

In no other area of commerce is there a clamoring by a user to pay MORE for
their purchase, particularly a vital commodity. Why oil? The only
explanation is that those advocating higher oil prices are socialists that
have decided that oil is bad.
--

JR

Pete C. wrote:
dpb wrote:
Pete C. wrote:
dpb wrote:
Pete C. wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:
...
how do you supply power when the sun goes down,if there are no batteries to
store the excess power generated by the solar panels?
Wind generators typically go quiet at night,too.
BTW, I just looked at the Gray County (KS) wind farm production data.
Since initial startup mid-2001 thru mid-2007, they have averaged only
40% capacity factor w/ a high month of less than 60% and several months
of only 20%. That implies from 2.5X to 5X the required generation even
to get the output which still would be awfully expensive to have such
excess installed capacity. Wind has some benefits, but it can't replace
baseload generation in large quantites w/o very high excess capacity at
other times. This facility is in W KS, one of the highest wind energy
potential areas in the US.
I've driven past some relatively huge wind turbine farms in west TX and
they sure didn't seem to be anywhere near full production either. Wind
certainly isn't the answer by itself, but it can certainly contribute to
the total.

The (continental) US spans a few time zones so that gives some spread,
It's still dark where it's dark when it's dark and those folks need
lights when it's dark, not while the sun's shining...

I understand what you think you would be doing there, but while haven't
done actual calculations, one problem is that you're adding even more
requirements for transmission during those dark times or still require
other generation facilities.
No single solution, a lot of different sources need to be adding power
to the grid in a lot of different places. If we can get better storage
technology than current batteries that will solve a lot of problems,
including EV range or lack thereof.

and hydro and tidal should go a long way towards filling in the night.
Add in locally viable items like biomass in big farm / ranch areas,
geothermal in the few areas where that works, some storage such as
pumped hydro and CAS to store surplus production during peak times ...
Certainly hydro, tidal and pumped storage have very limited geographical
constraints. I don't recognize "CAS".
Hydro and tidal generation are geographically limited, but a have a lot
of energy available and should be significant contributors to the total.
CAS is compressed air storage, same basic idea as pumped hydro storage,
compress air with off peak excess and run back through a turbine on
peak.
There are very few significant hydro locations undeveloped in the US.
OK, I know of CAS now that you remind me -- it's small potatoes kind of
solution.

Wind is a "fill-in" but I don't see it ever being practical as a
large-scale replacement as it is simply too costly to build the required
alternate source since it isn't reliable (enough).

The fundamental answer to electrical generation is nuclear.

Nuke is certainly the short term solution. Hopefully in the few decades
of breathing room nukes would provide storage technology would improve
enough to solve the problem of the intermittent nature of most RE
sources.

For central station large-scale electrical generation, there's no reason
in the world to consider anything _BUT_ nuclear for as far forward as
one cares to project. _IF_ fusion ever turns out to be practical for
large application(*), one can progress from fission to fusion, but the
there is no practical limit on fission reactors for fuel since one can
always close the fuel cycle and recycle roughly 90% of conventional fuel
and w/ the incorporation of some breeding, one could (at higher cost)
even divorce from fresh sources of U if absolutely required although
that would entail a higher cost since U is quite plentiful and therefore
relatively inexpensive.

(*) My personal opinion from 30+ yrs as NucE in power generation area in
watching the fusion folks is it is a technology that will remain "20
years in the future" for the next 50-100 years at least. Perhaps there
will be the fundamental materials breakthrough to solve the containment
problems in a practical manner, but so far, nothing anybody has
conceived or tried seems, imo at least, to have a chance of ever making
for a cost-effective way to build commercial generating stations.

--

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In , JoeSpareBedroom wrote in part:

As far as mass transport being foisted on people, do you know anyone who
takes the train into Manhattan to get to work?

I didn't think so.

I dopn't live or work in Manhattan, so I don't know anyone there, but I
have been there a few times during rush hour, and I have seen those
trains. They do fill up.

- Don Klipstein )


The point is that in some cities, mass transportation isn't foisted on
people. They choose to use it because the physical realities of trying to
drive into those cities make it insane to consider using a car on a daily
basis. People who use the word "foisted" must be possessed by some sort of
childish cowboy independence mentality. If the light rail idea had become a
reality here in my county, nobody would've been forced to use it.

"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
In article , CJT
wrote:

No. In fact, we should use up THEIR oil first.

And they should charge us much more for that privilege
than they do currently.

Why?

In no other area of commerce is there a clamoring by a user to pay MORE
for
their purchase, particularly a vital commodity. Why oil? The only
explanation is that those advocating higher oil prices are socialists that
have decided that oil is bad.
--

JR


I'm not clear about how the word "socialist" fits your comment. Using your
own words, tell me what a socialist is. No dictionary definitions, please.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

I wonder about nuclear plant security as well.

You can stop wondering. You can probably even relax a bit.

There is a nuke operating perhaps 25 miles from where I am typing. It's along
the Missouri river. Security there is ridiculously tight. Also, my
son-in-law is an engineer at a nuke perhaps 40 miles east of his home. The
(generic) stories he tells about security are impressive.

Besides, any terrorist strike on a U.S. nuclear-powered, electricity
generating station will not be a ground-based assault. It will come from the
air - and will be a dismal failure as core containment here is extremely OVER
built. FWIW: There was NO containment structure at Chernobyl.
--

JR

Pete C. wrote:
....
Nuclear energy is "green" energy, but it is not renewable. ...

Au contraire, me boy...

One can design/build a reactor w/ a breeding ratio unity even today.
Carter, unfortunately, canceled the large-scale demonstration project at
Oak Ridge along w/ the (previously mentioned more fully in another
response) marvelously short-sighted decision to ban
reprocessing/recycling of commercial fuel in the US.

The latter of those two decisions is still, unfortunately, in effect so
the only practical alternative available is the current "standard
design" advanced LWR's of the W and GE design. Unfortunately, also, the
long hiatus forced the other US vendors (CE and B&W) plus virtually all
of the manufacturing capability to close.

--

"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

I wonder about nuclear plant security as well.

You can stop wondering. You can probably even relax a bit.

There is a nuke operating perhaps 25 miles from where I am typing. It's
along
the Missouri river. Security there is ridiculously tight. Also, my
son-in-law is an engineer at a nuke perhaps 40 miles east of his home.
The
(generic) stories he tells about security are impressive.

Besides, any terrorist strike on a U.S. nuclear-powered, electricity
generating station will not be a ground-based assault. It will come from
the
air - and will be a dismal failure as core containment here is extremely
OVER
built. FWIW: There was NO containment structure at Chernobyl.
--

JR


If these features are present everywhere, I'll be happy. Actually, though,
security is pretty tight at the Ginna plant east of here (Rochester).
Fishing boats occasionally drift too close to the security zone, and it
raises holy hell. The containment structure is another issue - I have no
idea what it's like.

My other concern is whether it would be possible for a bunch of idiots to
plan another joke like the Shoreham plant (Long Island). It eventually died
an appropriate death because the evacuation plan was also conceived by
idiots who never bothered to look at a map of Long Island.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

That latest intelligence stinker about Iran seems to have
stopped him from waving his dick around for the moment.

We're making progress. At least you admit that he HAS a dick. g

Now, if only we could silence people like HeyBub.

If HE is ever legally silenced, I expect that YOU will have been squelched
well before him. Silencing opposing speech is a dangerous thing. Every - and
I mean EVERY - time it has been tried, a big war promptly ensues.

There's a large contingent like him, who, given a choice
between going to a strip club and seeing a mushroom cloud
over Tehran, would choose the bomb.

I'm not as convinced of that as you.

Our parents (and grandparents) "let the genie out of the bottle" in 1945. By
some miracle, it hasn't been used since. That is an incredible accomplishment
that I fully support and hope will continue forever.

However, if we are ever "nuked" (dirty or explosive), I believe we should
explosively nuke the offending nation in reply.

war is sometimes unavoidable.

Your honesty and civility in usenet is refreshing.

It's another thing to fantasize about it in the shower.

Now THAT is a scary thought, indeed. God forbid such a person ascend to high,
influential office.
--

JR

CJT wrote:
....

In case you didn't notice, the corporate loons are never held
accountable for damage THEY do based on falsehoods about all
the good and minimal harm their pet projects will do. Just look
at how many SuperFund sites there are. Some of the companies
manage to just walk away. Others go bankrupt (even as the people
in charge start another company to repeat the cycle).

The first statement is certainly patently false as a blanket generality,
others note many that have paid large damages, even to the point of
driving them into bankruptcy.

I'll only add that many (and I'd venture "most" but it would take too
much time to confirm the statistics) of the Superfund sites are from
locations that go back in some cases as much as 100 years earlier to
initial site usage for industrial use when both attitudes and knowledge
were grossly different than today. At the time, those were standard and
common practices and virtually all were within compliance of applicable
law and regulations _OF_THE_TIME. That is significant.

That there should be efforts to mitigate former sites is good, but to
caste current individuals as scapegoats for stuff done before they were
even born is not productive.

That said, yes, there are some who aren't doing all they might, but that
too is a fairly widespread trait in human history. Overall, if one
compares progress in the US to the developing nations and places such as
E Europe or the former Soviet Union, we look pretty darn good.

--

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Physically building the bomb itself isn't very complicated.

People who know what they're talking about would disagree with your view on
this issue. If I knew you were going to happen along, I would've jotted down
the names of experts who were interviewed just after the latest intelligence
stinker about Iran's nuclear capabilities. They all said that refining the
fuel was a bitch, but bomb design was the easiest part.

I'm not going to whine and demand a citation. I believe this claim.

Obviously (to me, anyway), "easy" in this context is relative.

Do you really think the technology is such a well guarded secret?

Perhaps not, particularly with the proliferation of knowledge due to internet
connectivity and access. I'm sure much of weapons nuke technology is well
guarded, but not exactly secret anymore. Too bad. sigh

myopic pacifists whine and cry when we forcibly
SILENCE [the] sword rattling [of rogue states].

You never saw me say anything indicating that I'm a pacifist.

Agreed. You're words have revealed that. I suspect, however, that you are
among those that believe that words (diplomacy) should be used well after I
think the shooting should commence.

If you disagree, please prove me wrong.

Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. You are informed and write
well. I've enjoyed the "conversation".

Oh, wait. This is usenet: Your muther wears COMBAT BOOTS! (So there)
--

JR

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
....

Not to complicate the issue, but a number of arms control experts have
pointed out that there's only one way we'll stop "rogue states" from
eventually developing nuclear weapons: Eliminate civilian nuclear power
plants.

I'd like to see a quote from even one "arms control expert" who would
say that eliminating civilian nuclear power would stop rogue nations
from developing nuclear weapons. I'd venture that "expert" would be
self-anointed or propounded by one of the "green" organizations w/ a
vendetta against nuclear power.

An enriched-U weapon doesn't require a reactor at all as the most simple
example. There's sufficient highly-enriched material already extant in
Russia that has yet to be diluted that diversion is one of the highest
paths for organizations w/ sufficient money.

--

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
....
...and I wonder about nuclear plant security as well.

Ever been to visit a US commercial nuclear site?

--

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Note the magically licensed part. (g)

Hehehehe! Yeah, I saw that. Then we could hope for magically passive
environmentalists when it came to breaking ground.
--

JR

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 25, 8:11 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

...





In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:
I
I wonder how much of that statement is based on the assumption
that
the CFLs are going to be gotten rid of the way they should be,
which
is
not likely to be the way they are.
I was talking about if all of the mercury in the CFLs got into the
environment, as if the worn-out CFLs are all ground up and
incinerated
in
bonfires.
Interesting. Would you have a cite or two, I haven't seen anything
like that and would like to read them. Thanks.
If your county has a web site, you might find some links there.
About all I can find on my county, the big city nearby and
state websites (as well as the EPAs) is what the proper ways to dispose
of the CFLs. Nothing on the local and nothing I can find right off on
the EPA on the question of how they came to that conclusion. It may very
well be correct, I'm just saying I can't find anything right off to back
it up. Until then it is a rumor (g).
Currently, and into the foreseeable future, the EPA is not a reliable
source
for environmental information.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This comment is really special coming from a guy that in another part
of this thread posted a link to an article that used OPEC, officials
in India, and the secretary of state of MA as credible sources pinning
the high price of oil on speculators. LOL

++++++++++++++++++++++


I'm absolutely positive that everyone in that article was more qualified
than you are to comment on the subject in question.

And I'm absolutely positive that the EPA is more qualified
than you...

As I see it, what will happen w/ CFL's is the same thing that currently
happens w/ incandescents -- when they burn out, folks will toss them in
the trash and that's it, no matter what the rules are. There will be a
small number of folks who will go to some extra trouble, but it will be
a minute fraction of the population.

--

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

If any are disposed of through lamp recycling outfits, then
reduction of mercury pollution would be even greater.

"They" removed the mercury from dry cells (batteries). Now it's CFLs (compact
fluorescent lamps) turn to be the poster child of a Good Ideatm with a
BAAAAD environmental impact.

How much mercury is in the average CFL? How much REAL damage can they do if
introduced into the general waste stream and deposited in a MODERN landfill?

If they are ahem PROPERLY recycled, what happens to the mercury?

If the D.C.Droids can legislate 35mpg and ban the 100w and 75w incandescent
light bulb, why do they not address the building "threat" of discarded CFLs?
--

JR

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

You're right, but prepare to be spanked by a few of the delusional here.
No dilusions here. They wanted the SUV they bought. What more reason do
they
need?
--

JR


How do you know they wanted them? ...

That they bought them is pretty good evidence. What motivated that want
is, also, their business, not mine (nor yours)...after all, marketing
folks deserve to make a living, too.

--

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Until then it is a rumor (g).

Is the mercury in the average CFL more dangerous or present a greater
potential for environmental impact that does the (presumable) lead in the
solder of an incandescent lamp?

Are we simply trading one hazard for another to save a few kilowatts?
--

JR

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
In article , "Pete C."
wrote:

Twice a week, I pass by a park & ride lot. It's as empty as
it's been for many years.
An advertising campaign would help that.
I doubt it. Such an advertising campaign would help only those entities
promoting the campaign.



In this specific example, which entity would be helped by an ad campaign
encouraging carpooling?

Mostly the ad agencies and media outlets paid for the development and
air time (of course, they both get "public service" credits from the FCC
for pro bono ad campaigns in lieu of some of the actual dollars.

The evidence is that all the efforts have not had much influence on
increasing actual ridership of public transportation if market forces
and convenience haven't been sufficient on their own. There's
absolutely no reason to think that would change w/ a new campaign more
than a very small amount.

--

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 08:42:19 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Why do people recycle containers & paper when it would be so much easier to
just throw the stuff into the regular trash?

Because it is free where it is successful?


In my city the trash service picks up your trash from the side of the
house or the backyard which makes the streets look tidy. But, the
recycle bins must be placed by the curb, not a big deal. I stopped
city-service recycling years ago because...

Dogs, coons, varmints and kids get into the approved recycle bins
(dogs around here know when it's trash day)

The recycle people smash all glass items and I'd rather not have to
clean up slivers of glass again.

Recycle will not accept some plastics--even plastics with the triangle
recycle symbol on them. They do accept any plastics that were used
for non-food or any plastics that contained cooking oils. Strange.

Metal containers are to be washed and labels removed. Non-food metal
is not accepted.

Cardboard of any kind is not accepted. I guess they can't profit
enough.


I compost all my non-meat food scraps, coffee grounds and other items,
don't buy magazines/newspapers anymore, so my recycle bin would take a
month to fill. I take aluminum cans to the church where they sell
it and turn it into money for the needy--better than profit for the
recycle folks. Some cities charge per bag of trash which I think is a
bad idea--people will secretly dump their trash bags anywhere and
everywhere. Trash pickup won't accept appliances nor old tires, which
is why you can see many old tires and rusted appliances thrown into a
ditch--lovely.

Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Also, we need pull some of the "Highway taxes" away from highways and
let it go to building other forms of transportation like light rail,
etc.

Why throw good money after bad?

We built it - and they didn't come.

With the exception of the high-density rust belt areas, mass transportation
has been a losing proposition since the mid-to-late '60s.

That, of course, didn't stop those in control of taxation from furthering
their agenda of the Good Ideatm - and they're still at it (Ex: Your words.)

I have long suggested that the Feds zero out their gas and
highway-related taxes (along with the money) and let the individual
states raise theirs to take up the slack and let them spend it as they
see fit.

I agree with that but it's a sure bet that the suits in D.C. will NEVER (ever)
relinquish that control. Sorry.

That's not reasonable in that the Federal highway system promotes
interstate commerce, not intrastate. Each state (or commonwealth) does
have their own state transportation departments which take care of state
highways already.

--

Don Klipstein wrote:
....
Those that can afford gas guzzlers are bidding up gas prices to levels
that others have trouble affording. I also find it unconscionable people
to consume more of a non-renewable resource than necessary just because
they can afford to do so.

I would wager you're using far more nonrenewable resources than the bare
minimum necessary from the viewpoint of the average _pick_the_nation_
individual but are unlikely to be willing to exchange your lifestyle for
theirs. That you have time and resources to spend here is prima facie
evidence of your exalted position most of the world.

By the same token, it is unreasonable to expect someone else to revert
to your level or choices regardless of what you see as "unconscionable".

--

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


What about the fact that it's right thing to do? It didn't happen overnight,
either. There was advertising involved.
Minority probabaly do it because of that. Like most everything else
in life.

By the way, it is NOT free.

Where it is successful, generally it is free to the person doing the
recycling. Taxes may be involved, but it is the actual out-of-pocket
(or more precisely the lack thereof) that is the main constraining
veriable where it makes any kind of real impact.

Or, in many locations, there are actual penalties for _NOT_
participating (From higher collection costs for those w/o recycling bins
to actual fines).

The point has been pretty amply demonstrated that unless there is
coercion, widespread adherence doesn't occur unless it is essentially
cost-free (where cost is both convenience and monetary) or there is a
penalty that changes the break-even point.

As a prime example, the local County landfill went from no charge to
charging for dumping household goods and landscape trimmings in order to
recoup some of the costs of the EPA requirements placed on landfills.
As soon as that happened, living in the county on the same side of town,
we started receiving "gifts" of all kinds from the folks in town who
wouldn't pay $12 to get rid of the old couch or the dead limbs.

Of course, what makes this such a big pita is that when I clean up my
fields, now _I_ have to pay the dump charge as well as spend the time
and effort to pick the crap up.

--


--

CJT wrote:
Jim Redelfs wrote:

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?


No. In fact, we should use up THEIR oil first.

And they should charge us much more for that privilege than they do
currently.

That would undoubtedly be short-sighted -- a world recession would not
be to their benefit either.

And, it's highly unlikely the Chinese would take it "sitting down" any
more than we if it became exceedingly onerous. It would be an
interesting shift in world politics to see the two team up against the
OPEC group though, wouldn't it????


--

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:


So, if half of our electricity comes from coal, replacing a 60 watt
incandescent with a 15 watt CFL reduces mercury pollution by 7 mg on
average. Average CFLs have about 3-4 mg of mercury.

I haven;t had a chance to look over the cites with any depth yet
(thanks for providing them). But at least the above seems to answer a
part of the question. Although that doesn't really answer the question
as to whether it is more dangerous spread over a large area (as in
emissions) or more concentrated in landfills. Which may or may not be a
mitigating factor.

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

What business is it of YOURS what someone else drives or WHERE they drive?

What others drive does affect demand/supply ratios of petroleum and
USA's refinery capacity.

Of course. However, my consumption of Cheerios (admittedly made from a
renewable resource) has the same effect, if lesser.

What is overlooked by many when it comes to the artificially high (or low)
price of gasoline and its effect on those of lesser means is those same folks
effect on the environment: They drive older, often MUCH older, vehicles that
are in relatively poor condition. As such, they consume a disproportionate
amount of fuel and, in doing so, pollute more.

These same poor slobs are disproportionately unlikely to use seatbelts or
acquire (note I didn't say "purchase") - and use - child car seats. Are we
not all paying for these choices? Where's the solution to this problem? More
legislation? More government bureaucracies and control? I think not.

some who can afford to consume non-renewable
resources at a faster rate than necessary

I concede your premise but it is to WHOM we allow to define "necessary" that
concerns me greatly.

Compared to 30-40 years ago, too much of my freedom to choose has been legally
deferred to another person or government entity. In so doing, they have done
a mostly poor job of it. Therefore, I am VERY unwilling to abdicate any more
freedom(s) than I currently have.
--

JR

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

it's a sure bet that the suits in D.C. will NEVER (ever)
relinquish that control. Sorry.

The voters are able to fire and replace them on such
basis should they care enough to do so!

Agreed. Voter apathy is easily one of my biggest frustrations.
--

JR

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

You had to know this particular guy in order to understand that it was,
indeed, a racial remark. "I got no problem with black people, but I just
don't think they belong on this street", spoken with a straight face.

OK. I'm sorry. That sentiment should have been dead and buried YEARS ago.
Sadly, it will always haunt us to some degree.

As far as mass transport being foisted on people, do you know
anyone who takes the train into Manhattan to get to work?

I didn't think so.

Heck, I've never been to Chicago, much less any more northeast than that.

You'll recall my diatribe excepted those living in the relative high density
areas I called "the rust belt". Given the age of such cities, there is no
other, viable transportation than so-called "mass" transit. Just look at the
hoards and throngs of people walking back to New Jersey from New York after
the twin towers fell.

I'm referring mostly to urban areas like Minneapolis, for example. The design
of the bridge to replace the one that fell (apparently) includes accommodation
for light rail. It sounds good but too few will use it. Those areas WEST of
the Mississippi river that have built light rail (for example) have discovered
that the system is woefully underused. But that doesn't shut 'em down: Those
that don't and/or never will use the system pay for it because light rail is A
Good Ideatm. This is as unfair to ME as is the gas consumption of my
Silverado to "them". Touché.
--

JR

"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

That latest intelligence stinker about Iran seems to have
stopped him from waving his dick around for the moment.

We're making progress. At least you admit that he HAS a dick. g

Now, if only we could silence people like HeyBub.

If HE is ever legally silenced, I expect that YOU will have been squelched
well before him. Silencing opposing speech is a dangerous thing. Every -
and
I mean EVERY - time it has been tried, a big war promptly ensues.

There's a large contingent like him, who, given a choice
between going to a strip club and seeing a mushroom cloud
over Tehran, would choose the bomb.

I'm not as convinced of that as you.


HeyBub is a member of the 54%. His affliction is passed on through genetics
and upbringing. Only sterilization will solve the problem.


It's another thing to fantasize about it in the shower.

Now THAT is a scary thought, indeed. God forbid such a person ascend to
high,
influential office.


It's too late. The 54% spoke twice, and put one of their own in the White
House.

"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Physically building the bomb itself isn't very complicated.

People who know what they're talking about would disagree with your view
on
this issue. If I knew you were going to happen along, I would've jotted
down
the names of experts who were interviewed just after the latest
intelligence
stinker about Iran's nuclear capabilities. They all said that refining
the
fuel was a bitch, but bomb design was the easiest part.

I'm not going to whine and demand a citation. I believe this claim.

Obviously (to me, anyway), "easy" in this context is relative.

Do you really think the technology is such a well guarded secret?

Perhaps not, particularly with the proliferation of knowledge due to
internet
connectivity and access. I'm sure much of weapons nuke technology is well
guarded, but not exactly secret anymore. Too bad. sigh

myopic pacifists whine and cry when we forcibly
SILENCE [the] sword rattling [of rogue states].

You never saw me say anything indicating that I'm a pacifist.

Agreed. You're words have revealed that. I suspect, however, that you
are
among those that believe that words (diplomacy) should be used well after
I
think the shooting should commence.


There's no such thing as diplomacy, just as there's no such thing as honest
legislation. There is only the transfer of wealth and influence. Bribery, in
other words.