Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme
In alt.engineering.electrical Doug Miller wrote:
| In article , "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: | |David Nebenzahl wrote: | | Anyone who expresses a preference for the /National Enquirer/ over the | NYT *is* a certified fool. | Not really. You always know the National Enquirer is lying, but you |aren't always sure with the NYT. | | More to the point: the lies in the NE are obvious, whereas those in the NYT | are much more subtle. The NE knows that everyone knows they are lying. They don't try to hide it. The NYT tries to make sure people don't know they are lying. -- |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance | | by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to | | Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. | | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) | |
#163
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - EnvironmentalProtection Agency must be called for a broken bulb
On Jun 21, 5:34*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote: I do like the idea of taxing the incandescent bulbs. *But I also like the idea of taxing cheap imports. Then there are those who are opposed to using tax laws to promote public policy. Taxes distort the marketplace. As for taxing imports, this silliness was settled in the 18th Century in Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations." Smith proved that everybody benefits when nations do what they do best and freely trade with other nations who also do what they do best. Regrettably, not everybody keeps up with the latest economic theories. Exactly; taxes and tariffs and import controls for no reason other than to satisfy some lobbyist is why Canadian softwood lumber cost US builders more in the US than it does in Canada; due to protectionist tariffs and import restrictions! (About $2000 per house is one estimate!) Anyway; with the bottom dropping out of the US house market Canadian lumber producers have been market diversifying. Along with increasing demands from China and India but with increasing fuel/energy costs for cutting, sawing and transporting etc. the cost will no doubt be a lot higher if/when US demand returns! Unfortunately the blame game continues; in this instance the US government protecting the US lumber industry, (in the USA many woodlots are privately owned) versus claim that Canadian companies are also subsidized because they are paying too low stumpage fees for cutting on publicly owned forest land. China doesn't seem to care as long as it gets wood! |
#164
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - EnvironmentalProtection Agency must be called for a broken bulb
On Jun 21, 8:20*pm, wrote:
As long as all nations are on a level playing field, this would be so. *But it is a fact that most nations outside the USA have governments playing a hand in the economies. This sounds really odd north of that 'longest undefended' border. Where the USA, rightly or wrongly has a reputation of being one of the most protectionist states in the Americas; whether it is cheaper lettuce from say Chile or taxing imports from elsewhere to 'protect' US industry/agriculture or lumber! Maybe where defence is involved one can understand; the 'Eurofighter' may be a better aircraft but it may be better to have Boeing or Northrupp actually make them??? But the signs are there; other nations are going their own way and depending less on imports/exports from/to the USA as they diversify and rationalize their own industries and agriculture etc. BTW we use cheap light bulbs; about one dollar per pack of four (including our federal sales tax of about 13%) for 40, 60 or 100 watts, in part for heating. Our small bathroom heater rarely cuts in when the six 40 watters (total $1.50) above the vanity are on. And the el cheapo bulbs last for ages. Works fine because we never need (or even own) Air Conditioning. |
#165
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme
In article ,
says... David Nebenzahl wrote: On 6/24/2008 4:49 PM krw spake thus: In article , says... I see you would rather make a fool of yourself than discuss the issue. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/bu...ef=environment Would rather read the National Enquirer. Anyone who expresses a preference for the /National Enquirer/ over the NYT *is* a certified fool. Not really. You always know the National Enquirer is lying, but you aren't always sure with the NYT. You're quite sure with the NYT too, but it's a lot less entertaining. -- Keith |
#166
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb
|
#167
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb
|
#168
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb
VWWall wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote: snip Someone once said the reason God could create the universe in six days was because it didn't have to be backward compatible! :-) I like that! :-) There is a lot of truth there too. The desire for backward compatibility (or at least compatibility with the majority of commercial software already out there) has *got* to be holding a lot of innovation back. Sure, some high priced applications can be recompiled for a different architecture, but at what cost? daestrom |
#169
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme
wrote:
In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote: For all the panty-waists out there who whine about CFLs containing mercury and, in particular, those who oppose the use of energy saving lamps and advocate the construction of more coal-fired plants instead: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/bu...ef=environment What about long tube fluorescent lights that I also refuse to put in my home for the same reason? Will they come out and do a full EPA-grade cleanup if a CFL (or FL) breaks? I've found tubes that are especially low mercury. So low, they are approved for common trash disposal. daestrom |
#170
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:51:07 -0400, "daestrom"
wrote: wrote: In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote: For all the panty-waists out there who whine about CFLs containing mercury and, in particular, those who oppose the use of energy saving lamps and advocate the construction of more coal-fired plants instead: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/bu...ef=environment What about long tube fluorescent lights that I also refuse to put in my home for the same reason? Will they come out and do a full EPA-grade cleanup if a CFL (or FL) breaks? I've found tubes that are especially low mercury. So low, they are approved for common trash disposal. daestrom Hi daestrom, That's correct. In virtually all jurisdictions, lamps that pass federal TCLP (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure) regulations can be disposed in the regular household trash just like any other light bulb. Cheers, Paul |
#171
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb
daestrom wrote:
Any of this sound familiar? Just replace 'broker' with 'mortgage broker' and 'stock' with 'real-estate'. After the crash, stricter regulations were put in place about buying on margin and most people got smarter about buying on margin. Probably a similar thing will happen now with mortgages. Won't happen. If stricter rules were employed in the mortgage market, those traditionally deprived, downtrodden, and discriminated against couldn't afford a home beyond their means. Further, segregated and gated communities would remain off-limits to other classes of citizens. The minions that determine the final regulations are committed to equality of outcome. Whatever laws the legislative branch writes or whatever rules are implemented by political appointees, the silliness will prevail. |
#172
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb
|
#173
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb
|
#174
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb
In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
| On 25 Jun 2008 15:08:35 GMT, wrote: | |In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote: | || As with the halogens I identified above, incandescent lamp life is || based on the same 50 per cent rule -- that is an industry-wide || standard. For a graphical representation of this, see page 2 of: || || http://www.sylvania.com/content/disp...x?id=003694068 | |Then something's out of whack somewhere. I see far more than 50% of bulbs |last beyond 750 hours of usage. That didn't catch my attention before as I |did not assume something like the 50% basis. | | | Hi Phil, | | A couple possible explanations. One is that although a standard | 100-watt incandescent has a nominal service life of 750 hours, the 25, | 40 and 60-watt versions are typically rated at 1,000 hours. Secondly, | manufacturers have been introducing products that are shifting the | balance between higher lumen output and longer life further towards | the latter, so you may have noticed the elogic lamps in the above link | have a rated life of anywhere from 1,125 hours (95-watt) to 2,250 in | the case of the 40-watt equivalent. Line voltage and the use of | dimmers can also dramatically affect lamp life. I looked at my spare lightbulb supply today. Most did not have boxes. But one set still did. These are 25-watt and show 2500 hours. http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/aee/2008-06-26/s6301196.jpg So I guess I should raise the issue not specifically about 5000 hours, but about the 50% basis. | If you're extremely fussy about spectral distribution, I don't see any | clear winners. Philip's new MasterColour Elite ceramic metal halide | lamps are arguably the very best the industry has to offer; you can | see its distribution graph on page 2 of the following spec sheet and | draw your own conclusions. | | See: | http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/...pdf/p-5899.pdf | | The spectral performance of their TL930 and TL950 lamps can be found | he | | http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/...f/P-5037-D.pdf I have not seen good light from MH lamps, either. A better fluorescent formulation could fix FL lamps. But it would require so many different compounds to make an even spectrum that it would most likely be prohibitively expensive. I have found that LEDs come in enough discrete wavelengths that this might work. But they degrade at different rates over time, and keeping it in color balance would be hard. -- |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance | | by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to | | Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. | | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) | |
#175
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme
In alt.engineering.electrical krw wrote:
| In article , | says... | | David Nebenzahl wrote: | | On 6/24/2008 4:49 PM krw spake thus: | | In article , | says... | | I see you would rather make a fool of yourself than discuss the | issue. | | http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/bu...ef=environment | | Would rather read the National Enquirer. | | Anyone who expresses a preference for the /National Enquirer/ over the | NYT *is* a certified fool. | | | Not really. You always know the National Enquirer is lying, but you | aren't always sure with the NYT. | | You're quite sure with the NYT too, but it's a lot less | entertaining. Actually, the NYT has been known to "dilute" their publication with some truthful articles from time to time. -- |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance | | by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to | | Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. | | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) | |
#176
Posted to alt.engineering.electrical,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb
In article , phil-news-
says... In alt.engineering.electrical krw wrote: | In article , | says... | daestrom wrote: | | Any of this sound familiar? Just replace 'broker' with 'mortgage | broker' and 'stock' with 'real-estate'. | | After the crash, stricter regulations were put in place about buying | on margin and most people got smarter about buying on margin. Probably a | similar thing will happen now with mortgages. | | | Won't happen. | | If stricter rules were employed in the mortgage market, those traditionally | deprived, downtrodden, and discriminated against couldn't afford a home | beyond their means. Further, segregated and gated communities would remain | off-limits to other classes of citizens. | | That is not the problem at all. The real problem is "toxic CDOs" | and the margins the people who rolled these instruments used. Add | in any *slight* downturn and you have a instant busted bank. Like | the crash above, the margins on these real estate budles is quite | low (as low as 3%, AIUI). A *minute* downturn and it's in negative | territory. When you start getting defaults... Then the banks start cutting back on loans and the demand side of the supply/demand ratio drops, leading to even lower prices, more upside- down mortgages, more defaults, etc. Exactly, but it needn't go that far to leave banks, and such, bankrupt. All it takes is a 3% real estate decline and the value of the instrument is negative. Real estate declining to 97% of its value from the peak of a bubble isn't much of a "downturn". | The minions that determine the final regulations are committed to equality | of outcome. | | True, but not really this issue. it will affect the direction of the solution. The solution used in the stock market can't be the same as used in the housing market because of this. The real problem is that the toxic CDOs have invaded the stock market, as well. Banks are required (after the '29 crash) to keep much higher margins. The stock (bond) market isn't under such restrictions with CDOs. That's why you have money that was borrowed 30 times. Banks can't do that. | Whatever laws the legislative branch writes or whatever rules are | implemented by political appointees, the silliness will prevail. | | That is definitely true. There is no end to silly season anymore. Unfortunately, this is true way too often. -- Keith |
#177
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme
On 24 Jun 2008 15:31:09 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:
:Paul M. Eldridge wrote in : : : For all the panty-waists out there who whine about CFLs containing : mercury and, in particular, those who oppose the use of energy saving : lamps and advocate the construction of more coal-fired plants instead: : :why not NUCLEAR power plants? They are clean,safe,and practical. :We'll need them anyways for plug-in electric autos. :Good high paying jobs,too. GOOD for the economy. Nuclear? Clean safe and practical? Huh? Ask people in Eastern Europe about Chernobyl. Also, they haven't come up with a decent means of dealing with nuclear waste. You cannot demonstrate that it's clean, safe or practical. Dan |
#178
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme
Dan Musicant ) wrote in
news On 24 Jun 2008 15:31:09 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote: :Paul M. Eldridge wrote in m: : : For all the panty-waists out there who whine about CFLs containing : mercury and, in particular, those who oppose the use of energy saving : lamps and advocate the construction of more coal-fired plants instead: : :why not NUCLEAR power plants? They are clean,safe,and practical. :We'll need them anyways for plug-in electric autos. :Good high paying jobs,too. GOOD for the economy. Nuclear? Clean safe and practical? Huh? Ask people in Eastern Europe about Chernobyl. a RUSSIAN plant;they can't do anything proper except military weapon. Then look at France and Japan... Also, they haven't come up with a decent means of dealing with nuclear waste. You cannot demonstrate that it's clean, safe or practical. Dan France and Japan have;cleanly and safely generating around 70% of their electric power from nuclear power. You're just trying to set Utopian,unpractical,goals to block nuclear power. The ONLY reason the US hasn't got their waste problem settled is due to the environuts. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
#179
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme
"Dan Musicant" wrote in message Nuclear? Clean safe and practical? Huh? Ask people in Eastern Europe about Chernobyl. If you knew the difference between that plant design and any US plant, you'd not make such statements. |
#180
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in
: "Dan Musicant" wrote in message Nuclear? Clean safe and practical? Huh? Ask people in Eastern Europe about Chernobyl. If you knew the difference between that plant design and any US plant, you'd not make such statements. well,that's the sum of environuts arguments concerning nuclear power; create fear,misinformation,distrust,outright lie.....all based on FEELINGS and not real information. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
#181
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme
Dan Musicant wrote:
Nuclear? Clean safe and practical? Huh? Ask people in Eastern Europe about Chernobyl. Uh, nobody in Eastern Europe was harmed by Chernobyl - except perhaps to their phobias. Also, they haven't come up with a decent means of dealing with nuclear waste. You cannot demonstrate that it's clean, safe or practical. People concerned with that sort of thing have come up with MANY methods of dealing with nuclear waste. These methods range from encasing the waste in molten glass and dumping the ingots in the Pacific Ocean to shooting them into the sun to storing them in salt domes. None of the proposed solutions have been implemented because a solution is not needed today. The longer we wait for a final decision, the better the decision will be. In other words, we don't have to take steps until we have to take steps. By every objective standard, nuclear power is safer than almost any alternative. Except to those who fear. |
#182
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme
In article , HeyBub wrote:
Dan Musicant wrote: Nuclear? Clean safe and practical? Huh? Ask people in Eastern Europe about Chernobyl. Uh, nobody in Eastern Europe was harmed by Chernobyl - except perhaps to their phobias. Also, they haven't come up with a decent means of dealing with nuclear waste. You cannot demonstrate that it's clean, safe or practical. People concerned with that sort of thing have come up with MANY methods of dealing with nuclear waste. These methods range from encasing the waste in molten glass and dumping the ingots in the Pacific Ocean to shooting them into the sun to storing them in salt domes. None of the proposed solutions have been implemented because a solution is not needed today. The longer we wait for a final decision, the better the decision will be. In other words, we don't have to take steps until we have to take steps. I also see that anti-nukers will block implementation of any solution to long term waste storage. Anti-nukers want their problems with nuclear energy to remain unsolved, so that they can oppose nuclear power. As a result, the barriers are political more than technical. - Don Klipstein ) |
#183
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme
On 6/29/2008 1:01 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:
In article , HeyBub wrote: Dan Musicant wrote: Nuclear? Clean safe and practical? Huh? Ask people in Eastern Europe about Chernobyl. Uh, nobody in Eastern Europe was harmed by Chernobyl - except perhaps to their phobias. Also, they haven't come up with a decent means of dealing with nuclear waste. You cannot demonstrate that it's clean, safe or practical. People concerned with that sort of thing have come up with MANY methods of dealing with nuclear waste. These methods range from encasing the waste in molten glass and dumping the ingots in the Pacific Ocean to shooting them into the sun to storing them in salt domes. None of the proposed solutions have been implemented because a solution is not needed today. The longer we wait for a final decision, the better the decision will be. In other words, we don't have to take steps until we have to take steps. I also see that anti-nukers will block implementation of any solution to long term waste storage. Anti-nukers want their problems with nuclear energy to remain unsolved, so that they can oppose nuclear power. I assume that by "anti-nukers" you also mean, um, er, the entire state governments of both Utah and Nevada which have vigorously opposed nuke dumps in those states since they were proposed decades ago, no? Not exactly the usual lefty "environ-meddlers" (in Edward Abbey's immortal phrase) ... As a result, the barriers are political more than technical. Both are barriers. There are good technical reasons we don't have a long-range high-level radioactive waste repository, due to various geological problems with *every* site that's been proposed, and political bungling over the years by the likes of the DOE, NRC, and most importantly the Feds vs. the states (the Feds wanting to ram through a repository at any cost, backed up with shabby "science", and the states fighting back with lawsuits, regulatory appeals, etc. In fact, this is one of *the* classic states-rights issues. -- "Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." - With apologies to H. L. Mencken |
#184
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme
In , David Nebenzahl
wrote: On 6/29/2008 1:01 PM Don Klipstein spake thus: In article , HeyBub wrote: Dan Musicant wrote: Nuclear? Clean safe and practical? Huh? Ask people in Eastern Europe about Chernobyl. Uh, nobody in Eastern Europe was harmed by Chernobyl - except perhaps to their phobias. Also, they haven't come up with a decent means of dealing with nuclear waste. You cannot demonstrate that it's clean, safe or practical. People concerned with that sort of thing have come up with MANY methods of dealing with nuclear waste. These methods range from encasing the waste in molten glass and dumping the ingots in the Pacific Ocean to shooting them into the sun to storing them in salt domes. None of the proposed solutions have been implemented because a solution is not needed today. The longer we wait for a final decision, the better the decision will be. In other words, we don't have to take steps until we have to take steps. I also see that anti-nukers will block implementation of any solution to long term waste storage. Anti-nukers want their problems with nuclear energy to remain unsolved, so that they can oppose nuclear power. I assume that by "anti-nukers" you also mean, um, er, the entire state governments of both Utah and Nevada which have vigorously opposed nuke dumps in those states since they were proposed decades ago, no? Not exactly the usual lefty "environ-meddlers" (in Edward Abbey's immortal phrase) ... As a result, the barriers are political more than technical. Both are barriers. There are good technical reasons we don't have a long-range high-level radioactive waste repository, due to various geological problems with *every* site that's been proposed, and political bungling over the years by the likes of the DOE, NRC, and most importantly the Feds vs. the states (the Feds wanting to ram through a repository at any cost, backed up with shabby "science", and the states fighting back with lawsuits, regulatory appeals, etc. In fact, this is one of *the* classic states-rights issues. Besides the fulltime environmentalists many of whom are at best luddites, we have a wider set of chemophobes and the like. More still, we have NIMBY-ism playing very well in this country. Even people who say we need such-and-such say we need it someplace other than here. Politicians gain votes by saying how such-and-such proposed for "our district" is a *bad thing*, dangerous, toxic, whatever even if they would have supported it coming into existence somewhere else. And I don't see any actual technical problems with dumping nuclear waste into salt domes, or into uranium mines that held radioactive materials just fine for many millions of years. Especially if the waste is vitrified first. - Don Klipstein ) |
#185
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme
On 6/29/2008 1:59 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:
And I don't see any actual technical problems with dumping nuclear waste into salt domes, or into uranium mines that held radioactive materials just fine for many millions of years. Especially if the waste is vitrified first. Salt domes turn out to be one of the worst places to consider storing radwaste, even though it was originally thought they'd be ideal. (I did a lot of research on this very topic some years ago, so I do know *something* about it.) The thing that seemed attractive about salt domes for storing nuclear waste was the property they had of "healing" cracks and voids in the salt, so that if there was a potential leak, it would basically seal itself over in a short time. Turns out that the rate of "creep" in salt is far higher than the geologists originally estimated. So high, in fact, that they determined that if waste was stored there, it would soon be entombed by the advancing salt. One of the requirements of any high-level radioactive repository is that the waste containers must be accessible and retrievable; salt makes this damn near impossible. So any other bright ideas? -- "Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." - With apologies to H. L. Mencken |
#186
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme
On 29 Jun 2008 02:23:50 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in : "Dan Musicant" wrote in message Nuclear? Clean safe and practical? Huh? Ask people in Eastern Europe about Chernobyl. If you knew the difference between that plant design and any US plant, you'd not make such statements. well,that's the sum of environuts arguments concerning nuclear power; create fear,misinformation,distrust,outright lie.....all based on FEELINGS and not real information. Hi Jim, Perhaps if the nuclear industry paid more attention to winning over the hearts and minds of the financial sector rather than pointing fingers at so-called "environuts" they could move forward. Of course, there's always the tax payer: "....So risky and expensive, in fact, that building new ones won't happen without hefty government support. NRG Energy (NRG), Dominion (D), Duke Energy (DUK), and six other companies have already leaped to file applications to construct and operate new plants largely because of incentives Congress has put in place. The subsidies include a 1.8 cents tax credit for each kilowatt hour of electricity produced, which could be worth more than $140 million per reactor per year; a $500 million payout for each of the first two plants built (and $250 million each for the next four) if there are delays for reasons outside company control; and a total of $18.5 billion in loan guarantees. The latter is crucial, since it shifts the risk onto the federal government, making it possible to raise capital from skittish banks. "Without the loan guarantees, I think it would be very difficult for the first wave of plants to move forward," says David W. Crane, CEO of NRG...." See: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine... e_top+stories Ever wonder if those pinko hair-shirt environuts are in bed with the evil capitalist pigs? ;-) Cheers, Paul |
#187
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme
On 6/29/2008 4:49 PM Paul M. Eldridge spake thus:
Perhaps if the nuclear industry paid more attention to winning over the hearts and minds of the financial sector rather than pointing fingers at so-called "environuts" they could move forward. Of course, there's always the tax payer: "....So risky and expensive, in fact, that building new ones won't happen without hefty government support. NRG Energy (NRG), Dominion (D), Duke Energy (DUK), and six other companies have already leaped to file applications to construct and operate new plants largely because of incentives Congress has put in place. The subsidies include a 1.8 cents tax credit for each kilowatt hour of electricity produced, which could be worth more than $140 million per reactor per year; a $500 million payout for each of the first two plants built (and $250 million each for the next four) if there are delays for reasons outside company control; and a total of $18.5 billion in loan guarantees. The latter is crucial, since it shifts the risk onto the federal government, making it possible to raise capital from skittish banks. "Without the loan guarantees, I think it would be very difficult for the first wave of plants to move forward," says David W. Crane, CEO of NRG...." See: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine... e_top+stories Ever wonder if those pinko hair-shirt environuts are in bed with the evil capitalist pigs? ;-) Thank you for that. The commonly-believed myth is that the forward march of nuclear power generation was stopped dead in its tracks by those aforementioned commie-pinko hair-shirt NIMBY environmeddlers back in the 1970s and 80s. This is basically bull****: the industry collapsed for very easily explained financial reasons, with just enough public distaste for nukes on account of Three Mile Island and other disasters to put it under. It would be instructive to go back and read the story of the Rancho Seco plant near Sacramento, which was shut down not by environmeddlers, nor by money managers, but by voters in the municipal utilities district which operated the plant. [sorry, couldn't find good links in a minute search; it's out there ...] -- "Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." - With apologies to H. L. Mencken |
#188
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme
In article , David
Nebenzahl wrote: On 6/29/2008 1:59 PM Don Klipstein spake thus: And I don't see any actual technical problems with dumping nuclear waste into salt domes, or into uranium mines that held radioactive materials just fine for many millions of years. Especially if the waste is vitrified first. Salt domes turn out to be one of the worst places to consider storing radwaste, even though it was originally thought they'd be ideal. (I did a lot of research on this very topic some years ago, so I do know *something* about it.) The thing that seemed attractive about salt domes for storing nuclear waste was the property they had of "healing" cracks and voids in the salt, so that if there was a potential leak, it would basically seal itself over in a short time. Turns out that the rate of "creep" in salt is far higher than the geologists originally estimated. So high, in fact, that they determined that if waste was stored there, it would soon be entombed by the advancing salt. One of the requirements of any high-level radioactive repository is that the waste containers must be accessible and retrievable; salt makes this damn near impossible. So any other bright ideas? If the waste is a mile down in a salt dome, why is there need for it to be retrievable? And if it is vitrified, how would it leak into the surrounding salt? - Don Klipstein ) |
#189
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme
On 6/29/2008 6:01 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:
In article , David Nebenzahl wrote: Turns out that the rate of "creep" in salt is far higher than the geologists originally estimated. So high, in fact, that they determined that if waste was stored there, it would soon be entombed by the advancing salt. One of the requirements of any high-level radioactive repository is that the waste containers must be accessible and retrievable; salt makes this damn near impossible. So any other bright ideas? If the waste is a mile down in a salt dome, why is there need for it to be retrievable? I don't know if it's a DOE/NRC requirement, but it is definitely a preference that any stored waste be retrievable, for several reasons: o In order to be able to determine the state of the storage container, to detect any leaks, and to monitor its temperature, any radiation leaks, etc. o Because future generations might conceivably be able to use this buried waste with new technology. -- "Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." - With apologies to H. L. Mencken |
#190
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/29/2008 6:01 PM Don Klipstein spake thus: In article , David Nebenzahl wrote: Turns out that the rate of "creep" in salt is far higher than the geologists originally estimated. So high, in fact, that they determined that if waste was stored there, it would soon be entombed by the advancing salt. One of the requirements of any high-level radioactive repository is that the waste containers must be accessible and retrievable; salt makes this damn near impossible. So any other bright ideas? If the waste is a mile down in a salt dome, why is there need for it to be retrievable? I don't know if it's a DOE/NRC requirement, but it is definitely a preference that any stored waste be retrievable, for several reasons: o In order to be able to determine the state of the storage container, to detect any leaks, and to monitor its temperature, any radiation leaks, etc. o Because future generations might conceivably be able to use this buried waste with new technology. I believe that the second is already being thought about. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
#191
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme
In article , David
Nebenzahl wrote: On 6/29/2008 6:01 PM Don Klipstein spake thus: In article , David Nebenzahl wrote: Turns out that the rate of "creep" in salt is far higher than the geologists originally estimated. So high, in fact, that they determined that if waste was stored there, it would soon be entombed by the advancing salt. One of the requirements of any high-level radioactive repository is that the waste containers must be accessible and retrievable; salt makes this damn near impossible. So any other bright ideas? If the waste is a mile down in a salt dome, why is there need for it to be retrievable? I don't know if it's a DOE/NRC requirement, but it is definitely a preference that any stored waste be retrievable, for several reasons: o In order to be able to determine the state of the storage container, to detect any leaks, and to monitor its temperature, any radiation leaks, etc. o Because future generations might conceivably be able to use this buried waste with new technology. Your several reasons amount to 2. The first one is unnecessary when the waste is a mile (or more) down in a salt dome. The second is an argument against "permanent" waste disposal, and *I Wonder Why* a nuclear power opponent likes arguments against schemes for the permanent waste disposal that nuclear power opponents claim is necessary (and claim is unsolved) to make nuclear power safe? - Don Klipstein ) |
#192
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme
On 6/29/2008 8:09 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:
In article , David Nebenzahl wrote: On 6/29/2008 6:01 PM Don Klipstein spake thus: In article , David Nebenzahl wrote: Turns out that the rate of "creep" in salt is far higher than the geologists originally estimated. So high, in fact, that they determined that if waste was stored there, it would soon be entombed by the advancing salt. One of the requirements of any high-level radioactive repository is that the waste containers must be accessible and retrievable; salt makes this damn near impossible. So any other bright ideas? If the waste is a mile down in a salt dome, why is there need for it to be retrievable? I don't know if it's a DOE/NRC requirement, but it is definitely a preference that any stored waste be retrievable, for several reasons: o In order to be able to determine the state of the storage container, to detect any leaks, and to monitor its temperature, any radiation leaks, etc. o Because future generations might conceivably be able to use this buried waste with new technology. Your several reasons amount to 2. Yes, I knew that: I gave you two out of several. The second is an argument against "permanent" waste disposal, and *I Wonder Why* a nuclear power opponent likes arguments against schemes for the permanent waste disposal that nuclear power opponents claim is necessary (and claim is unsolved) to make nuclear power safe? I didn't say I liked, or even agreed with this argument: I'm telling you the reasons the people who are pushing for *permanent* repositories want the waste to be retrievable. I don't write the rules, just reporting them. -- "Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." - With apologies to H. L. Mencken |
#193
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme
In article , David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/29/2008 1:59 PM Don Klipstein spake thus: And I don't see any actual technical problems with dumping nuclear waste into salt domes, or into uranium mines that held radioactive materials just fine for many millions of years. Especially if the waste is vitrified first. Salt domes turn out to be one of the worst places to consider storing radwaste, even though it was originally thought they'd be ideal. (I did a lot of research on this very topic some years ago, so I do know *something* about it.) The thing that seemed attractive about salt domes for storing nuclear waste was the property they had of "healing" cracks and voids in the salt, so that if there was a potential leak, it would basically seal itself over in a short time. No, actually, the thing that really seemed attractive about salt domes is that the *presence* of crystalline salt necessarily means the *absence* of water. No water to corrode the containers. No water to be contaminated. |
#194
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme
In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote: advancing salt. One of the requirements of any high-level radioactive repository is that the waste containers must be accessible and retrievable; salt makes this damn near impossible. Why must they be accessible and retrievable? -- --Tim Smith |
#195
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Home Depot Annouces CFL Recycling Programme
On 7/2/2008 1:18 AM Tim Smith spake thus:
In article , David Nebenzahl wrote: advancing salt. One of the requirements of any high-level radioactive repository is that the waste containers must be accessible and retrievable; salt makes this damn near impossible. Why must they be accessible and retrievable? Ask DOE; it's always been one of their requirements. I would guess because they want to be able to monitor them and make sure they're not getting too hot, leaking, etc. Just bein' careful, dontcha know. -- "Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." - With apologies to H. L. Mencken |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Pool light bulb any different than regular light bulb? | Home Repair | |||
Removing broken energy saver bulb | UK diy | |||
PRIMER bulb Broken | Home Ownership | |||
Broken bulb | Home Repair | |||
Bug Light Bulb---any bulb for outside use that are not yellow? | Home Ownership |