A few years ago I moved from the farm to the city. In my city apartment I have
full central air and I hate it. I can stay cool but the electric bill during
hot humid months is about like the national debt.

My old farmhouse was a story and a half with blown in insulation in all the
walls and the roof rafters. I had nice shade trees on the west side of the
house that provided good shade after 2:00 in the afternoon. I had good screened
windows on all the windows during the summer. I could open windows downstairs
and leave the stairway door open and a few windows cracked upstairs and you
could feel the draft moving through the house. I had a sprinkler type hose
along the top ridgeline of the house and when the temps in the house started
getting uncomfortable I would turn the water on. You could feel the house cool
off almost immediately. I would adjust the water flow to keep the roof just wet
enough to keep it damp but not so much that water would run down the gutters. I
estimate on a real hot day it would take an extra hundred gallons a day to keep
the house cool.My water cost for that extra 3,000 gallons a month was about $10
IIRC. I don't recall ever having an electric bill higher than $30 for a month
in the summer. Friends with similar sized houses and central air were paying
$70 or more a month. If you live in an area where water is not in short supply
this is an option to consider.
Dennis

Gunluvver2 wrote in message
...
If you live in an area where water is not in short supply
this is an option to consider.

Yep. And yep. The city slickers haven't a clue. Get back to your roots and
be satisfied.

"Spike" wrote in message
...

Gunluvver2 wrote in message
...
If you live in an area where water is not in short supply
this is an option to consider.

Yep. And yep. The city slickers haven't a clue. Get back to your roots and
be satisfied.

Too bad you'll look like an eccentric with that sprinkler on the roof. :-p

Tim

--
"I've got more trophies than Wayne Gretsky and the Pope combined!"
- Homer Simpson
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

On 15 Jul 2004 04:24:48 GMT, (Gunluvver2) wrote:

,;A few years ago I moved from the farm to the city. In my city apartment I have
,;full central air and I hate it. I can stay cool but the electric bill during
,;hot humid months is about like the national debt.

Who controls the thermostat and the On/Off switch?
,;
,;My old farmhouse was a story and a half with blown in insulation in all the
,;walls and the roof rafters. I had nice shade trees on the west side of the
,;house that provided good shade after 2:00 in the afternoon. I had good screened
,;windows on all the windows during the summer. I could open windows downstairs
,;and leave the stairway door open and a few windows cracked upstairs and you
,;could feel the draft moving through the house. I had a sprinkler type hose
,;along the top ridgeline of the house and when the temps in the house started
,;getting uncomfortable I would turn the water on. You could feel the house cool
,;off almost immediately. I would adjust the water flow to keep the roof just wet
,;enough to keep it damp but not so much that water would run down the gutters. I
,;estimate on a real hot day it would take an extra hundred gallons a day to keep
,;the house cool.My water cost for that extra 3,000 gallons a month was about $10
,;IIRC. I don't recall ever having an electric bill higher than $30 for a month
,;in the summer. Friends with similar sized houses and central air were paying
,;$70 or more a month. If you live in an area where water is not in short supply
,;this is an option to consider.
,;Dennis

(Gunluvver2) wrote in message ...
A few years ago I moved from the farm to the city. In my city apartment I have
full central air and I hate it. I can stay cool but the electric bill during
hot humid months is about like the national debt.

My old farmhouse was a story and a half with blown in insulation in all the
walls and the roof rafters. I had nice shade trees on the west side of the
house that provided good shade after 2:00 in the afternoon. I had good screened
windows on all the windows during the summer. I could open windows downstairs
and leave the stairway door open and a few windows cracked upstairs and you
could feel the draft moving through the house. I had a sprinkler type hose
along the top ridgeline of the house and when the temps in the house started
getting uncomfortable I would turn the water on. You could feel the house cool
off almost immediately. I would adjust the water flow to keep the roof just wet
enough to keep it damp but not so much that water would run down the gutters. I
estimate on a real hot day it would take an extra hundred gallons a day to keep
the house cool.My water cost for that extra 3,000 gallons a month was about $10
IIRC. I don't recall ever having an electric bill higher than $30 for a month
in the summer. Friends with similar sized houses and central air were paying
$70 or more a month. If you live in an area where water is not in short supply
this is an option to consider.
Dennis

Sounds like a great option if your roof doesn't leak... ...
Or if it doesn't rain about every other day.

Been saving for the new house instead of reshingling the atrocity of a
roof that I have. It has six seperate peaks. Count the valleys and
instersections and such. The only reason it doesn't leak more is it
is REALLY steep.

JW

I also live in the country, rural Alabama, and my house is surrounded
by huge pines and oaks. The sun really never hits my roof. I put a new
roof down back in late 85, and the shingles have yet to seal down in
most of the areas........the only areas they have ever sealed is the
relatively small areas the sun may hit on occassion. Heard it takes
direct sunlight to make em seal, and outside temp alone will not do
it.

My power bills are fairly low as well, and in the winter my power
bills go even lower as I heat with wood.

Too much concrete, asphalt, and bricks in the city that trap and
retain heat from that sun all day, only to radiate it all back out at
night........Nothing beats a nice shady country place away from all
that city noise and heat and rat race of day to day life.
Visit my website: http://www.frugalmachinist.com
Opinions expressed are those of my wifes,
I had no input whatsoever.
Remove "nospam" from email addy.

I wish my electric bill was $70. I have no airconditioning but am all
electric. Remember the futuristic commercials in the late 50's early
60's about how wonderful the "all electric" house was going to be? It
ain't. I finally got my bills down under $150 a month. Luckily I work
from 5:00AM to 1:30 so it doesn't get nasty hot until I get home. On
the really hot days I pull the mattress pad back off of my waterbed
and lay down on it with just the sheet covering the vinyl....now
THAT's airconditioning

JohnF




On 15 Jul 2004 04:24:48 GMT, (Gunluvver2) wrote:

A few years ago I moved from the farm to the city. In my city apartment I have
full central air and I hate it. I can stay cool but the electric bill during
hot humid months is about like the national debt.

My old farmhouse was a story and a half with blown in insulation in all the
walls and the roof rafters. I had nice shade trees on the west side of the
house that provided good shade after 2:00 in the afternoon. I had good screened
windows on all the windows during the summer. I could open windows downstairs
and leave the stairway door open and a few windows cracked upstairs and you
could feel the draft moving through the house. I had a sprinkler type hose
along the top ridgeline of the house and when the temps in the house started
getting uncomfortable I would turn the water on. You could feel the house cool
off almost immediately. I would adjust the water flow to keep the roof just wet
enough to keep it damp but not so much that water would run down the gutters. I
estimate on a real hot day it would take an extra hundred gallons a day to keep
the house cool.My water cost for that extra 3,000 gallons a month was about $10
IIRC. I don't recall ever having an electric bill higher than $30 for a month
in the summer. Friends with similar sized houses and central air were paying
$70 or more a month. If you live in an area where water is not in short supply
this is an option to consider.
Dennis

Yep. And yep. The city slickers haven't a clue. Get back to your roots and
be satisfied.




I don't understand this statement. What are you saying; don't use air
conditioning? Do you not use any modern conveniences? Still driving that
horse and buddy?

Lane

"Lane" lane_nospam@copperaccents_dot_com wrote in message
...

Yep. And yep. The city slickers haven't a clue. Get back to your roots
and
be satisfied.




I don't understand this statement. What are you saying; don't use air
conditioning? Do you not use any modern conveniences? Still driving that
horse and buddy?

Lane



Ah, er... "buggy"

"Tim Williams" wrote in message ...
"Spike" wrote in message
...

Gunluvver2 wrote in message
...
If you live in an area where water is not in short supply
this is an option to consider.

Yep. And yep. The city slickers haven't a clue. Get back to your roots and
be satisfied.

Too bad you'll look like an eccentric with that sprinkler on the roof. :-p

Tim

Could be handy in fire season out in CA. Around here, the RH is
usually 10-15% during summer months, evaporative coolers work pretty
well most of the time for cheap and the water consumption isn't really
that high. Too bad the RH is about 40% right now and it's been
getting up into triple digits. Work has regular AC but home is pretty
miserable right now. Only a couple more weeks of it to endure, then
it'll start cooling off.

Stan

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:19:58 -0700, "Lane"
lane_nospam@copperaccents_dot_com wrote:


Yep. And yep. The city slickers haven't a clue. Get back to your roots and
be satisfied.




I don't understand this statement. What are you saying; don't use air
conditioning? Do you not use any modern conveniences? Still driving that
horse and buddy?

Lane

I believe that the idea is that there are low tech, simple and
inexpensive solutions for many problems that the average joe simply
goes down to Home Despot and pays for, then pays big money for using
it from that point on.

Gunner

"The entire population of Great Britain has been declared insane by
their government. It is believed that should any one of them come in
possession of a firearm, he will immediately start to foam at the
mouth and begin kiling children at the nearest school. The proof of
their insanity is that they actually believe this."
-- someone in misc.survivalism

"Lane" lane_nospam@copperaccents_dot_com wrote in
news

"Lane" lane_nospam@copperaccents_dot_com wrote in message
...

Yep. And yep. The city slickers haven't a clue. Get back to your roots
and
be satisfied.




I don't understand this statement. What are you saying; don't use air
conditioning? Do you not use any modern conveniences? Still driving that
horse and buddy?

Lane



Ah, er... "buggy"




Thanks for the correction. I was getting concerned.

--
John Snow
"If I knew what I was doing, I wouldn't be here"

In article , Gunner says...

I believe that the idea is that there are low tech, simple and
inexpensive solutions for many problems that the average joe simply
goes down to Home Despot and pays for, then pays big money for using
it from that point on.

Unfortunately, evaporative cooling doesn't work when the humidity
is around 80 percent.

Older houses do deal with the heat better though. Ours was built
around 1900 and has old plaster and lath walls. The plaster
stays quite cool during the day, so if the nights aren't too
bad it's noticeably nicer inside during the day. It also has
the old cast iron radiators, which seem to work a good deal
better than baseboard.

However when the days are 90 degs, and high humidity, the
house fan just doesn't do it. So our bedrooms each have a
small AC unit in the window.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"JohnF" wrote in message
...
I wish my electric bill was $70. I have no airconditioning but am all
electric. Remember the futuristic commercials in the late 50's early
60's about how wonderful the "all electric" house was going to be?

Yeah, too bad the nuclear wonderland didn't take off.

Tim

--
"I've got more trophies than Wayne Gretsky and the Pope combined!"
- Homer Simpson
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

no no buddy was way funnier

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 02:06:44 -0500, "Tim Williams"
calmly ranted:

"Spike" wrote in message
...

Gunluvver2 wrote in message
...
If you live in an area where water is not in short supply
this is an option to consider.

Yep. And yep. The city slickers haven't a clue. Get back to your roots and
be satisfied.

Too bad you'll look like an eccentric with that sprinkler on the roof. :-p

Yeah, and a wet aluminum-foil roof (shiny side in so he can read
their thoughts but they can't read his) would be downright strange.


I moved to the country (3 miles outside a town of 23,000) a couple
years ago and found that they had electricity out here!

I added $2.3k worth of low-E, dual-paned windows. Add $6k to
that for a nice, new 96% efficient gas furnace (the PVC pipe
for a chimney flue gave that away) and A/C unit keep me a
toasty 69F (or chilled 75F) 365 days a year for $28-$48/mo
electric in the summer and $6 (min charge) to $35 in natural
gas in the winter. It has a 10 year warranty and may outlast me.

If you're using an old furnace, a replacement will pay or itself
in just a few years, but the comfort provided is worth TEN TIMES
that.

When I was a student in Phoenix in '72 (17° in the morning when
I got up, 104° at noon when I went to lunch), I had a swamp cooler
which kept the 4 rooms of the 1920's mansion (I rented 1/3 of it)
quite cool even in 100+ temps due to the low humidity. The room it
was in did turn a bit moldy, though, so they're nowhere near
perfect. It doubled the electric bill in the summer, too.

I much prefer forced air heat/cooling, TYVM.

-
DANCING: The vertical frustration of a horizontal desire.
---------------------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Full Service Web Programming

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 15:02:06 GMT, JohnF
wrote:


I wish my electric bill was $70. I have no airconditioning but am all
electric. Remember the futuristic commercials in the late 50's early
60's about how wonderful the "all electric" house was going to be? It
ain't. I finally got my bills down under $150 a month. Luckily I work
from 5:00AM to 1:30 so it doesn't get nasty hot until I get home. On
the really hot days I pull the mattress pad back off of my waterbed
and lay down on it with just the sheet covering the vinyl....now
THAT's airconditioning

JohnF

I do that also , just make sure its not too cold or you'll wake up
dead from hypothermia.

The wife does the bills , I don't want to know what my electric bill
is. When I run the machines alot then she will make a point to tell
me.

On 15 Jul 2004 13:38:54 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

I believe that the idea is that there are low tech, simple and
inexpensive solutions for many problems that the average joe simply
goes down to Home Despot and pays for, then pays big money for using
it from that point on.

Unfortunately, evaporative cooling doesn't work when the humidity
is around 80 percent.

Older houses do deal with the heat better though. Ours was built
around 1900 and has old plaster and lath walls. The plaster
stays quite cool during the day, so if the nights aren't too
bad it's noticeably nicer inside during the day. It also has
the old cast iron radiators, which seem to work a good deal
better than baseboard.

However when the days are 90 degs, and high humidity, the
house fan just doesn't do it. So our bedrooms each have a
small AC unit in the window.

Jim

Of course..and ice houses dont work very well when you live in the
high desert...no ice and no freezing weather.

A humid day in my neck of the woods is 40% .

There are low tech low cost methods for many things and they are all
different for where you live or what you are trying to do.

Gunner


Gunner


"This device is provided without warranty of any kind as to reliability,
accuracy, existence or otherwise or fitness for any particular purpose
and Bioalchemic Products specifically does not warrant, guarantee,
imply or make any representations as to its merchantability for any
particular purpose and furthermore shall have no liability for or
responsibility to you or any other person, entity or deity with respect
to any loss or damage whatsoever caused by this device or object or by
any attempts to destroy it by hammering it against a wall or dropping it
into a deep well or any other means whatsoever and moreover asserts
that you indicate your acceptance of this agreement or any other
agreement that may he substituted at any time by coming within
five miles of the product or observing it through large telescopes or
by any other means because you are such an easily cowed moron
who will happily accept arrogant and unilateral conditions on a piece
of highly priced garbage that you would not dream of accepting on a
bag of dog biscuits and is used solely at your own risk.'

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:33:02 -0500, "Tim Williams"
wrote:

"JohnF" wrote in message
.. .
I wish my electric bill was $70. I have no airconditioning but am all
electric. Remember the futuristic commercials in the late 50's early
60's about how wonderful the "all electric" house was going to be?

Yeah, too bad the nuclear wonderland didn't take off.

Tim

My monthy electic bill is around $200 a month.

Damn Gray Davis to hell.

Gunner


"This device is provided without warranty of any kind as to reliability,
accuracy, existence or otherwise or fitness for any particular purpose
and Bioalchemic Products specifically does not warrant, guarantee,
imply or make any representations as to its merchantability for any
particular purpose and furthermore shall have no liability for or
responsibility to you or any other person, entity or deity with respect
to any loss or damage whatsoever caused by this device or object or by
any attempts to destroy it by hammering it against a wall or dropping it
into a deep well or any other means whatsoever and moreover asserts
that you indicate your acceptance of this agreement or any other
agreement that may he substituted at any time by coming within
five miles of the product or observing it through large telescopes or
by any other means because you are such an easily cowed moron
who will happily accept arrogant and unilateral conditions on a piece
of highly priced garbage that you would not dream of accepting on a
bag of dog biscuits and is used solely at your own risk.'

"Tim Williams" wrote in message
...
"JohnF" wrote in message
...
I wish my electric bill was $70. I have no airconditioning but am all
electric. Remember the futuristic commercials in the late 50's early
60's about how wonderful the "all electric" house was going to be?

Yeah, too bad the nuclear wonderland didn't take off.

This gets my goat also. 20% of this nations power is produced by nuclear
power and that emits nothing into the environment. 50% of this nations
power is produced by burning coal. That filthy crap dumps mercury, and
radioactive particles into the atmosphere in quantities measured in tons.
That kills and harms thousands of folks per year, plus all of the mining and
transportation accidents.

The last I heard the fuel cost for a nuclear reactor is something on the
order of just under 3 cents a kwh including long term waste disposal and
plant decommissioning.

Compare this to France. They have something like 90% of there power from
nukes and export lots to other countries in Europe.

--

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.

However when the days are 90 degs, and high humidity, the
house fan just doesn't do it. So our bedrooms each have a
small AC unit in the window.

Jim

That could be your problem.
I used to live in an old house built about 1750. It had white external walls
and the smallest wall faced south. When I came home from work on a hot day,
the inside temperature was up to 10 degrees less than outside. If I left all
the doors and windows open, the house actually got warmer.
I agree that all this depends upon the design of your particular house.
I hadn't heard of wetting the roof before either. My present house may
benefit from that technique to keep the bedrooms cool as they are built into
the loft. Thanks.

John

In article , Gunner says...

Of course..and ice houses dont work very well when you live in the
high desert...no ice and no freezing weather.

And yet - around here there are many man-made lakes, whose
purpose was strictly for harvesting ice during the winter.

Much of NYC's ice was floated down the river on barges from
this area. Also the bricks used to build much of NYC.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Roger Shoaf says...

The last I heard the fuel cost for a nuclear reactor is something on the
order of just under 3 cents a kwh including long term waste disposal and
plant decommissioning.

OK, that would make sense, except there has never *been* any
long term waste disposal. Ever. All of the power reactors
in the US all have every bit of spent fuel stored on site,
in pools.

No disposal.

Just warehousing.

As a point of issue, the spent fuel pool for NY's Indian
Point reactors (two and three) is now full. They want to
start taking fuel out of the water and begin storing
it above ground.

If they had some way to 'dispose' of the fuel offsite, they
would do so.

They don't.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Too bad you'll look like an eccentric with that sprinkler on the roof. :-p

In the original post I said sprinkler hose. You know the type of hose that has
little pin holes in it in regular spacing. Sends out a fine misty spray when
water is turned on.
Dennis

On 16 Jul 2004 13:28:34 -0700, jim rozen wrote:

||In article , Roger Shoaf says...
||
||The last I heard the fuel cost for a nuclear reactor is something on the
||order of just under 3 cents a kwh including long term waste disposal and
||plant decommissioning.
||
||OK, that would make sense, except there has never *been* any
||long term waste disposal. Ever.

On the contrary, nuclear waste disposal is ALL long term.

Texas Parts Guy

"williamhenry" wrote in message
.. .
no no buddy was way funnier



I was afraid that there would be some who would think that. Shame one you!
grin

Lane

In article , Rex B says...

On the contrary, nuclear waste disposal is ALL long term.

Long term, yes. Disposal, no. You don't get
rid of it. The correct statement would really
be, "long term waste warehousing."

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunluvver2 says...

Too bad you'll look like an eccentric with that sprinkler on the roof. :-p

In the original post I said sprinkler hose. You know the type of hose that has
little pin holes in it in regular spacing. Sends out a fine misty spray when
water is turned on.

We usually have that sort of thing built-in when the house
is assembled. It's called 'rain' around here. :^)

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Gunluvver2 says...

Too bad you'll look like an eccentric with that sprinkler on the roof. :-p

In the original post I said sprinkler hose. You know the type of hose that has
little pin holes in it in regular spacing. Sends out a fine misty spray when
water is turned on.

We usually have that sort of thing built-in when the house
is assembled. It's called 'rain' around here. :^)


Half your luck.

Where do you get some of that stuff?

--
Jeff R.
(in drought-stricken Sydney)

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:49:07 GMT, (Rex B)
wrote:

On 16 Jul 2004 13:28:34 -0700, jim rozen wrote:

||In article , Roger Shoaf says...
||
||The last I heard the fuel cost for a nuclear reactor is something on the
||order of just under 3 cents a kwh including long term waste disposal and
||plant decommissioning.
||
||OK, that would make sense, except there has never *been* any
||long term waste disposal. Ever.

On the contrary, nuclear waste disposal is ALL long term.

Texas Parts Guy

I don't believe the rosy numbers for nuke power. There is a story
about Rocky Flats in the paper today , granted it was a weapons plant
, but some of the cost should be added in. The DEO estimated the clean
up would take 60 yrs. and cost $36 billion. Now they are saying only
$7 billion , sounds fishy to me. And they are going to move it to
where? How much is it going to cost to move (clean up) 3 mile island
and all the other decommissioned plants? How much does and did it cost
to write up probably billions of pages of "law" about nukes? How much
for all the technology , partly for energy generation? How much to
build Yucca Mt. and test all the other sites? How much more to build a
nuke plant vs. coal and all the mining and refining put together. How
much for the transportation technology? Plus, 10,000 yrs.+ of
watching it?

I know I've asked this before , but it just doesn't sound right. I bet
if you compared solar/wind/geo/hydro vs. coal vs. nuke with real
honest numbers the numbers would be the inverse.

IIRC they just made public the Yucca Mt. thing , its only around a
million pages long. Should be no problem to come to a consciences if
it's a good idea to put it all in one hole in what a couple of life
times of reading. Sure we need the power, but hiding the numbers in
billions of pages isn't comforting. What about the trees and all the
other storage mediums of the information? )

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Roger Shoaf says...

The last I heard the fuel cost for a nuclear reactor is something on the
order of just under 3 cents a kwh including long term waste disposal and
plant decommissioning.

OK, that would make sense, except there has never *been* any
long term waste disposal. Ever. All of the power reactors
in the US all have every bit of spent fuel stored on site,
in pools.

No disposal.

Just warehousing.

As a point of issue, the spent fuel pool for NY's Indian
Point reactors (two and three) is now full. They want to
start taking fuel out of the water and begin storing
it above ground.

If they had some way to 'dispose' of the fuel offsite, they
would do so.

They don't.



The Physicists do not consider disposal/storage a problem. They do however
consider that coal burning spewing tons of radioactive material into the
atmosphere to be a problem.

The really nasty zoomies have a reasonably short life, the relatively benign
stuff has the long life.

--

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.

"Sunworshipper" wrote in message
...
How much to
build Yucca Mt. and test all the other sites? How much more to build a
nuke plant vs. coal and all the mining and refining put together. How
much for the transportation technology? Plus, 10,000 yrs.+ of
watching it?

Well, we wouldn't need so damn much of that if the public weren't scared to
**** about nuclear everything. It can all be transported safely with far
less to do.. truck drivers are supposed to stop before letting their payload
get struck by a train anyway, no?

Tim

--
"I've got more trophies than Wayne Gretsky and the Pope combined!"
- Homer Simpson
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

"Sunworshipper" wrote in message
...

I don't believe the rosy numbers for nuke power. There is a story
about Rocky Flats in the paper today , granted it was a weapons plant
, but some of the cost should be added in.

Like winning the cold war?



The DEO estimated the clean
up would take 60 yrs. and cost $36 billion. Now they are saying only
$7 billion , sounds fishy to me. And they are going to move it to
where? How much is it going to cost to move (clean up) 3 mile island
and all the other decommissioned plants? How much does and did it cost
to write up probably billions of pages of "law" about nukes? How much
for all the technology , partly for energy generation? How much to
build Yucca Mt. and test all the other sites? How much more to build a
nuke plant vs. coal and all the mining and refining put together. How
much for the transportation technology? Plus, 10,000 yrs.+ of
watching it?

I know I've asked this before , but it just doesn't sound right. I bet
if you compared solar/wind/geo/hydro vs. coal vs. nuke with real
honest numbers the numbers would be the inverse.

Hydro is good, but you are limited to the number of places where you can
build the dams.

Wind shows some promise, but only produces when the wind blows.

Solar is no where near cost effictive, see:
http://www.energyadvocate.com/fw61.htm




IIRC they just made public the Yucca Mt. thing , its only around a
million pages long. Should be no problem to come to a consciences if
it's a good idea to put it all in one hole in what a couple of life
times of reading. Sure we need the power, but hiding the numbers in
billions of pages isn't comforting. What about the trees and all the
other storage mediums of the information? )

I am not sure of what you are referring to when you write "the Yucca Mt.
thing". Yucca Mountain is the site designated as the final repository for
the US nuclear power waste. Political squabbling has delayed the opening
of the facility, but I suspect that sooner or later the place will open and
do what it was designed to do.

--

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:36:45 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote:


The Physicists do not consider disposal/storage a problem. They do however
consider that coal burning spewing tons of radioactive material into the
atmosphere to be a problem.

The really nasty zoomies have a reasonably short life, the relatively benign
stuff has the long life.

This is the reality of waste storage, get used to it.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/st...517159667.html

Wayne

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 00:05:09 -0500, "Tim Williams"
calmly ranted:

"Sunworshipper" wrote in message
.. .
How much to
build Yucca Mt. and test all the other sites? How much more to build a
nuke plant vs. coal and all the mining and refining put together. How
much for the transportation technology? Plus, 10,000 yrs.+ of
watching it?

Well, we wouldn't need so damn much of that if the public weren't scared to
**** about nuclear everything. It can all be transported safely with far
less to do.. truck drivers are supposed to stop before letting their payload
get struck by a train anyway, no?

Oui! Tell them to read this:

http://www.uic.com.au/nip14.htm
(header)
-snip-
Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors
Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper 14
November 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the outset, there has been a strong awareness of the potential
hazard of both nuclear criticality and release of radioactive
materials.

There have been two major reactor accidents in the history of civil
nuclear power - Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. One was contained and
the other had no provision for containment.

These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 11 000
cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries.

The risks from western nuclear power plants, in terms of the
likelihood and consequences of an accident or terrorist attack, are
minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks.

The operation of many nuclear reactors in the former Eastern Bloc is
of international concern, and a program of international assistance is
helping to improve their safety.
-snip-

Also tell them 1) Man is not causing global warming (but we should try
our damndest to stop trashing the planet.) 2) There is no way to stop
a terrorist from doing what he's going to do (so we should simply be
more aware, not toss away our rights for false protection schemes as
deemed fit by Lord Ashcroft.) 3) Affirmative Action programs, the NEA,
and the War on Drugs aren't working and should be scrapped or replaced
by saner programs. (Let's see, what else...?)

- This product cruelly tested on defenseless furry animals -
--------------------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Web App & Database Programming

Well, we wouldn't need so damn much of that if the public weren't scared
to
**** about nuclear everything.
Tim

I agree. The public is so under-educated about radioactivity and
contamination that their natural reaction to anything deemed radiocative is
fear. Little do they know that they live every day exposed to ionizing
radiation. Interestingly enough, having served time on a nuclear submarine,
I received more exposure while in port with the reactor shutdown than at sea
when the reactor was operating at power.

Shawn

Sadly, this can be accurately restated as

The public is so under-educated.... that their natural reaction to
anything... is fear.
Jon

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 12:38:14 -0400, "Shawn" shawn_75ATcomcastDOTnet
wrote:

Well, we wouldn't need so damn much of that if the public weren't scared
to
**** about nuclear everything.
Tim

I agree. The public is so under-educated about radioactivity and
contamination that their natural reaction to anything deemed radiocative is
fear. Little do they know that they live every day exposed to ionizing
radiation. Interestingly enough, having served time on a nuclear submarine,
I received more exposure while in port with the reactor shutdown than at sea
when the reactor was operating at power.

Shawn



----------------------------------------------------
Anything being cooked a second time needs a hot oven.

"Roger Shoaf" wrote in message ...
"Tim Williams" wrote in message
...
"JohnF" wrote in message
...
I wish my electric bill was $70. I have no airconditioning but am all
electric. Remember the futuristic commercials in the late 50's early
60's about how wonderful the "all electric" house was going to be?

Yeah, too bad the nuclear wonderland didn't take off.

This gets my goat also. 20% of this nations power is produced by nuclear
power and that emits nothing into the environment.

Not true. Nuclear power emits heat into the environment. All that water used
to cool the reactor gets dumped back to the lake or river it came from hotter
than when it was taken in. This leads to algal blooms, some of which are toxic,
and can disrupt breeding cycles of fish and invertibrates. In some cases the
cooling water leaves the plant with a small but higher than background
radioactivity. Of course the biggest problem is still storage of the fuel rods.



50% of this nations
power is produced by burning coal. That filthy crap dumps mercury, and
radioactive particles into the atmosphere in quantities measured in tons.
That kills and harms thousands of folks per year, plus all of the mining and
transportation accidents.

The last I heard the fuel cost for a nuclear reactor is something on the
order of just under 3 cents a kwh including long term waste disposal and
plant decommissioning.

Compare this to France. They have something like 90% of there power from
nukes and export lots to other countries in Europe.

Shawn wrote:

Well, we wouldn't need so damn much of that if the public weren't scared
to
**** about nuclear everything.

I agree. The public is so under-educated

That was the correct stopping point.

Ted

"rpayne" wrote in message
...


Not true. Nuclear power emits heat into the environment. All that water
used
to cool the reactor gets dumped back to the lake or river it came from
hotter
than when it was taken in. This leads to algal blooms, some of which are
toxic,
and can disrupt breeding cycles of fish and invertibrates. In some cases
the
cooling water leaves the plant with a small but higher than background
radioactivity. Of course the biggest problem is still storage of the fuel
rods.



Tell me something, why do you suggest that storing the spent fuel rods is a
bigger problem than the *tons* of radioactive material spewed forth by
burning coal? Or perhaps the *tons* of radioactive material sitting in slag
heaps? The coal also releases mercury into the atmosphere when it is burned
also.

Myself I would rather raise my kids at the fence line of a nuclear power
plant than down wind from a coal fired power plant.

As far as fish kills go, why don't you read this:
http://www.energyadvocate.com/fw89.htm


--

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.