"Han" wrote in message

Dear John McCarthy:

I'm in favor of nuclear energy. But you're looking at the problem from
a non-realistic, ivory tower point of view.


Han, you are much too kind! I am amazed at how a deluge of "facts" can be
used to support one's (political/religious) biases. His reasoning is scary!
I'm not against nuclear power--I know that is what is going to happen, but,
well, let's just say I wouldn't want him to be in charge--of anything.

I try to avoid posting off-topic subjects on the wRECk so, no more.

-Doug
(Robatoy--thanks for the link. It is always good to consider a different
point of view.)

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , Robatoy
wrote:

And while I'm at it, outlaw or tax the bejeezus out of all privately
owned vehicles over 2500 pounds with engines bigger than 2 litres.

You're gonna look kinda strange hauling plywood with a Honda Civic... and I
think I'll keep my Suburban for deer hunting, thank you very much.

I had hoped that it would be reasonable to assume that trades people
would be given somewhat larger vehicles. I was discussing the insanity
that comes with filling parking lots with urban assault monstrosities to
get a quart of milk, Doug. I also see no reason to drop a single child
off at a school with a 3 tonne SUV driven by the same woman who is
writing letters to the editor bitching and whining about the price of
gas.

A Suburban to go deer-hunting, albeit overkill, would be somewhat
acceptable if that's all it was used for. Up here in Kanuckistan, you're
not allowed to shoot deer from a moving vehicle, Doug.
(Nomex=ON) (I forgot who started that Nomex thing, I'm stealing it..and
thanks)

Drive something a little more responsible and walk a little further into
the bush, or buy a Quad if you have problems with your knees/legs, like
I do.
..

In article ,
"DouginUtah" wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

I try to avoid posting off-topic subjects on the wRECk so, no more.

You're right. It is OT. But often the feedback in the wRECk is of a much
higher grade than the 'specialized' flamewars in other NG's.
I will bow out of this thread as well.

-Doug
(Robatoy--thanks for the link. It is always good to consider a different
point of view.)

I try to point out that there is a lot of ground between the two points
of view. Conserve on the fossil end, and get smarter on the nuke end.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Prometheus wrote:

[snipperectomy]

Not only that, but it's just plain
spiffy.

Its spiffiness becomes amplified when you bolt a couple of nuclear
generators onto a new set of cross-country electrified high-speed double
track railroads and get all them damned trucks and busses off the road.

How you going to obtain right-of way? Don't say you're going to use the
highway, because messing with the area for the public's cars won't get you
reelected. You certainly will have to avoid all wetlands, wilderness areas,
urban areas where crossings cannot be made at other than highway level
because of the danger ... goes on and on.

In article ,
says...
Efficient transportation running off of a clean power source.

Fine. We'll bury the spent fuel rods in your backyard.

It ain't the firewood, it's the ashes :-).

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

In article ,
lid says...
Operating a nuclear plant should be held to the highest standards. The
plain fact that coal mines don't is no argument. I repeat: If someone
else operates illegally, irresponsibly, or unethically does not permit
Indian Point to operate their plant(s) in the same manner.

I once helped write a computer monitoring system for a nuke plant. It
was very clear that it would never be used, but the feds required the
plant to have it. Very discouraging to work on a useless system.

And I was a big proponent till I saw the quality of the workers and of
the security system. No thank you.

And that's not even considering the waste disposal problem. All
industry has such a good record at cleaning up after itself :-).

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

Han wrote in news:Xns966E45EE8DD23ikkezelf@
130.81.64.196:

than I can - I'm just a biochemist who occasionally uses low level
radioisotopes such as 14C and 32P.

I125 here.
Did an iodination myself too -- once...

Robatoy wrote in news:design-867337.22255006062005
@nr-tor01.bellnexxia.net:

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/p...clear-faq.html

With the startling increase in the number of cases of Autism, there's
renewed interest in Mercury contamination.

I personally find the amount of Mercury that comes from coal-fired plants
objectionable and would prefer alternative energy sources.

I'm more than willing to entertain a discussion on revitalizing our nuclear
plants. But as one who remembers TMI very well, I'm damned motivated to
ensure proper oversight of the General Contractor and Operator.

In article , "George"
wrote:

Its spiffiness becomes amplified when you bolt a couple of nuclear
generators onto a new set of cross-country electrified high-speed double
track railroads and get all them damned trucks and busses off the road.

How you going to obtain right-of way? Don't say you're going to
use the highway, because messing with the area for the public's cars
won't get yo reelected.

Right Of Way?? Confiscate what you need.
In areas where DieBolt wants too much money to assure you an election
win, contract Bechtel to dig you a tunnel. Bechtel still has some
tunnelling gear sitting around Boston.

Oh ye of little faith. All you have to do it make it worth-while to the
right people. But FIRST we use up all the oil, we have to bring those
voters to their knees first. What good is an empty highway?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but am I being a tad cynical today?

Hello,

Its spiffiness becomes amplified when you bolt a couple of nuclear
generators onto a new set of cross-country electrified high-speed double
track railroads and get all them damned trucks and busses off the road.
That alone will be a huge step in the right direction.
BTW.. build in some accountability in that new system, i.e. Do Not
privatize it. Staff the whole damn thing with military vets.

Efficient transportation running off of a clean power source.

And while I'm at it, outlaw or tax the bejeezus out of all privately
owned vehicles over 2500 pounds with engines bigger than 2 litres.

That might be a little bit stiff...
my VW Jetta (hardly a large vehicul) is 2600 with 2.1 litre engine....
you might want to turn the knob a little bit higher in order to include most
cars and exlude most monstruosity (1/2 of the 6 cilinders and all the 8 and
more...)...

cyrille

hello,

And while I'm at it, outlaw or tax the bejeezus out of all privately
owned vehicles over 2500 pounds with engines bigger than 2 litres.

You're gonna look kinda strange hauling plywood with a Honda Civic... and
I
think I'll keep my Suburban for deer hunting, thank you very much.

Never had trouble doing that on my Girlfriend 2 door civic 1.3L engine...
also most peoples do not go deer hunting :-)

I now also have a Ford Courier pickup truck at 2200lbs and 2L engine... with
a 8.5ft bed, perfect for these 8ft beices of wood :-)

cyrille

In article ,
Patrick Conroy wrote:

But as one who remembers TMI very well, I'm damned motivated to
ensure proper oversight of the General Contractor and Operator.

Oh yeah. You said a mouthful there. TRUE bidding processes.

In article ,
lgb wrote:

Fine. We'll bury the spent fuel rods in your backyard.

Naaaaaa.. Grind them into a slurry and pump it back into all the empty
oil wells. There's going to be some big ones available soon in the
Middle East.

In article ,
"Cyrille de Brébisson" wrote:

Hello,

Its spiffiness becomes amplified when you bolt a couple of nuclear
generators onto a new set of cross-country electrified high-speed double
track railroads and get all them damned trucks and busses off the road.
That alone will be a huge step in the right direction.
BTW.. build in some accountability in that new system, i.e. Do Not
privatize it. Staff the whole damn thing with military vets.

Efficient transportation running off of a clean power source.

And while I'm at it, outlaw or tax the bejeezus out of all privately
owned vehicles over 2500 pounds with engines bigger than 2 litres.

That might be a little bit stiff...
my VW Jetta (hardly a large vehicul) is 2600 with 2.1 litre engine....
you might want to turn the knob a little bit higher in order to include most
cars and exlude most monstruosity (1/2 of the 6 cilinders and all the 8 and
more...)...

cyrille

Cyrille,

You get to keep the car, but are confined to a maximum of 10,000 km per
year. How is that? G
One of my daughters has a Diesel Jetta..I just love driving that thing.

In article , Robatoy wrote:

A Suburban to go deer-hunting, albeit overkill, would be somewhat
acceptable if that's all it was used for. Up here in Kanuckistan, you're
not allowed to shoot deer from a moving vehicle, Doug.

I don't know of any place where that *is* allowed. I was talking about using
the 'Burb to haul my hunting gear, and hopefully a dead deer or two, while
keeping everything enclosed and locked up. Depending on where I'm hunting
(private land vs. public) I'll walk between 800yd and 2mi to get to my hunting
spot after I park.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

In article , "George" wrote:

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Prometheus wrote:

[snipperectomy]

Not only that, but it's just plain
spiffy.

Its spiffiness becomes amplified when you bolt a couple of nuclear
generators onto a new set of cross-country electrified high-speed double
track railroads and get all them damned trucks and busses off the road.

How you going to obtain right-of way? Don't say you're going to use the
highway, because messing with the area for the public's cars won't get you
reelected. You certainly will have to avoid all wetlands, wilderness areas,
urban areas where crossings cannot be made at other than highway level
because of the danger ... goes on and on.

I don't see much reason why rail lines couldn't be run down the medians of
existing interstates, similarly to the commuter rail service in and out of
Chicago. And there are plenty of *existing* rail lines on *existing*
rights of way that could be upgraded, doubtless at less expense than leasing
*new* rights of way and constructing new lines.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Robatoy wrote:

In article ,
Prometheus wrote:

[ snippage]


but now that you mention it,
buying Chinese supports communism.

Bingo. Glad to see somebody is awake.

Or perhaps it supports corruption of the Communist system by forcing them to
compete with capitalism?

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"lgb" wrote in message
...
In article ,


And that's not even considering the waste disposal problem. All
industry has such a good record at cleaning up after itself :-).

Probably would help if they had a place to put it.

Robatoy wrote:

In article ,
Prometheus wrote:

[snipperectomy]

Not only that, but it's just plain
spiffy.

Its spiffiness becomes amplified when you bolt a couple of nuclear
generators onto a new set of cross-country electrified high-speed double
track railroads and get all them damned trucks and busses off the road.

Well, that gets you from New York to Los Angeles or wherever, but how do you
get from Miami to Seattle? It's not as simple as building a railroad--if
it were then the railroads would still be a high profit operation. For
long haul passenger service, over that distance, your train is going to
have to be going 400 or so MPH to compete with the airlines and then you're
still going to have to run it cheaper, which may be difficult considering
all the infrastructure you have to maintain. For freight, who cares how
fast it goes?

That alone will be a huge step in the right direction.
BTW.. build in some accountability in that new system, i.e. Do Not
privatize it.

Huh? You're trusting the _government_?

Staff the whole damn thing with military vets.

Which does what? The guys who retire from NR already go into reactor
operation and who else do you have that is going to be any more capable
than your average civilian?

Efficient transportation running off of a clean power source.

And while I'm at it, outlaw or tax the bejeezus out of all privately
owned vehicles over 2500 pounds with engines bigger than 2 litres.

So your plumber or carpenter or whatever is going to have to make ten trips
in his Honda instead of one in the truck he uses now? How does that
benefit anybody? Or do you not consider ownership by a tradesman to be
"privately owned"?

Sorry, you're coming across as an idealist who hasn't really given his ideas
much thought.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...

I don't see much reason why rail lines couldn't be run down the medians of
existing interstates, similarly to the commuter rail service in and out of
Chicago. And there are plenty of *existing* rail lines on *existing*
rights of way that could be upgraded, doubtless at less expense than
leasing
*new* rights of way and constructing new lines.

Did you ever notice what _else_ is in those medians at most underpasses?
Concrete pillars....

Problem with the "upgrade" is sort of like trying to fix your power plant.
You go whole hog to the new requirements or nothing. The crossings would
all have to change.

Robatoy wrote:

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article ,
Robatoy wrote:

And while I'm at it, outlaw or tax the bejeezus out of all privately
owned vehicles over 2500 pounds with engines bigger than 2 litres.

You're gonna look kinda strange hauling plywood with a Honda Civic... and
I think I'll keep my Suburban for deer hunting, thank you very much.

I had hoped that it would be reasonable to assume that trades people
would be given somewhat larger vehicles. I was discussing the insanity
that comes with filling parking lots with urban assault monstrosities to
get a quart of milk, Doug. I also see no reason to drop a single child
off at a school with a 3 tonne SUV driven by the same woman who is
writing letters to the editor bitching and whining about the price of
gas.

Simple fact--Americans like big cars. If we can't have big cars we'll take
big trucks. People don't drive SUVs because they want to drive SUVs, they
drive them because you can't get a full-sized station wagon anymore.

A Suburban to go deer-hunting, albeit overkill, would be somewhat
acceptable if that's all it was used for. Up here in Kanuckistan, you're
not allowed to shoot deer from a moving vehicle, Doug.

No, but you have to get the deer _home_ in something. Of course deer are
small--think moose.

(Nomex=ON) (I forgot who started that Nomex thing, I'm stealing it..and
thanks)

Drive something a little more responsible and walk a little further into
the bush, or buy a Quad if you have problems with your knees/legs, like
I do.

It's not walking in that is the problem, it's hauling out.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Robatoy wrote:

In article ,
"DouginUtah" wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

I try to avoid posting off-topic subjects on the wRECk so, no more.

You're right. It is OT. But often the feedback in the wRECk is of a much
higher grade than the 'specialized' flamewars in other NG's.
I will bow out of this thread as well.

-Doug
(Robatoy--thanks for the link. It is always good to consider a different
point of view.)

I try to point out that there is a lot of ground between the two points
of view. Conserve on the fossil end, and get smarter on the nuke end.

And of course you're also planning to throttle down the Sun to just what we
need so that it doesn't run out of hydrogen sooner than it has to. Or is
that too long a time frame for you to be concerned about? And you
criticize others for thinking short term. Shame, shame.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Don't forget: TMI, 0; Chappaquidick, 1.

Patrick Conroy wrote:

Robatoy wrote in news:design-867337.22255006062005
:



http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/p...clear-faq.html



With the startling increase in the number of cases of Autism, there's
renewed interest in Mercury contamination.

I personally find the amount of Mercury that comes from coal-fired plants
objectionable and would prefer alternative energy sources.

I'm more than willing to entertain a discussion on revitalizing our nuclear
plants. But as one who remembers TMI very well, I'm damned motivated to
ensure proper oversight of the General Contractor and Operator.

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 15:04:45 -0400, George wrote:

"lgb" wrote in message
...
In article ,


And that's not even considering the waste disposal problem. All
industry has such a good record at cleaning up after itself :-).

Probably would help if they had a place to put it.

There's a great place to put the stuff, but political rather than
scientific reasons are preventing it being used. Go figure.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 15:04:45 -0400, George wrote:

"lgb" wrote in message
...
In article ,


And that's not even considering the waste disposal problem. All
industry has such a good record at cleaning up after itself :-).

Probably would help if they had a place to put it.

There's a great place to put the stuff, but political rather than
scientific reasons are preventing it being used. Go figure.


Instead it's in thousands of places, waiting for what the nuclear power
people were promised when they built.

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

For openers, my 'idealistic' view is set in the future when there are no
airlines to compete with, when fossil-fuel is priced through the roof
or simply not available; planes don't compete. I also didn't confine my
suggestion for a railroad to a single line.You, however, did.

Well, that gets you from New York to Los Angeles or wherever, but how do you
get from Miami to Seattle? It's not as simple as building a railroad--if
it were then the railroads would still be a high profit operation. For
long haul passenger service, over that distance, your train is going to
have to be going 400 or so MPH to compete with the airlines and then you're
still going to have to run it cheaper, which may be difficult considering
all the infrastructure you have to maintain.

For freight, who cares how
fast it goes?
When stuff absolutely, positively has the get there....whenever.
They will still want lettuce in New York City.

That alone will be a huge step in the right direction.
BTW.. build in some accountability in that new system, i.e. Do Not
privatize it.

Huh? You're trusting the _government_?
Maybe the likes of Bechtel and Haliburton will be a better idea?
oops...they ARE the government....now.

There will have been some changes in the government by then.
There will have been a revolution. The mobs get really ****y when they
can't drive their SUV's

Staff the whole damn thing with military vets.

Which does what? The guys who retire from NR already go into reactor
operation and who else do you have that is going to be any more capable
than your average civilian?
I was just looking for a job for the warriors who won't be needed in
times of world piece. Can't fight really big wars without fuel.
Besides, there will be virtually zero terrorists as there will be fewer
people ****ed at having been invaded for their resources... because
they'll be all out of resources.

I would hope that all those children who are now being left behind would
have been trained properly by the new government.

[snip]

So your plumber or carpenter or whatever is going to have to make ten trips
in his Honda instead of one in the truck he uses now? How does that
benefit anybody? Or do you not consider ownership by a tradesman to be
"privately owned"?

You just added some variables again. I would allow for trades to operate
larger vehicles, of course. Your interpretation of my suggestion is
silly. Perhaps some guidelines would exist for trade vehicles to be more
efficient, hybrids of some sort.

Sorry, you're coming across as an idealist who hasn't really given his ideas
much thought.

I'm only seeing the big picture. Others are better suited to nit-pick
the whole process to crawl. Let's form a study group and discuss what
colour to paint the railroad ties, eh?

You really shouldn't take me, or yourself so seriously.

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Simple fact--Americans like big cars. If we can't have big cars we'll take
big trucks.

We know this. That is the root of the problem. It is irresponsible to be
blowing that much of a finite resource for absolutely no reason other
than the gratification of spoiled consumers. The feed that those
monsters run on is going to run out.

I guess we'll leave that for our kids to worry about?


Just asking questions..Thassall..

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

And of course you're also planning to throttle down the Sun to just what we
need so that it doesn't run out of hydrogen sooner than it has to. Or is
that too long a time frame for you to be concerned about? And you
criticize others for thinking short term. Shame, shame.

I am looking really hard to find the humour in this because you canNOT
be serious.

Dave Carnell wrote in
:



Don't forget: TMI, 0; Chappaquidick, 1.



Remember that NRA-esque bumper sticker? "Ted Kennedy's car has killed more
people than my gun!"

Not an NRA member myself, but always snickered at that one.



On the other hand, what happened to Mary Jo was far from funny.
Mary Jo Kopechne, Catherine "Kitty" Genovese - the list is far too long.

In article , "George" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...

I don't see much reason why rail lines couldn't be run down the medians of
existing interstates, similarly to the commuter rail service in and out of
Chicago. And there are plenty of *existing* rail lines on *existing*
rights of way that could be upgraded, doubtless at less expense than
leasing
*new* rights of way and constructing new lines.

Did you ever notice what _else_ is in those medians at most underpasses?
Concrete pillars....

So how hard is it to go one side or the other? That doesn't seem to have been
much of a problem in Chicago; I can't imagine it would be more difficult to
figure out anywhere else.

Problem with the "upgrade" is sort of like trying to fix your power plant.
You go whole hog to the new requirements or nothing. The crossings would
all have to change.

Still less expense than building a bunch of new ones, I'm sure.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

"George" writes:

"lgb" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,


And that's not even considering the waste disposal problem. All
industry has such a good record at cleaning up after itself :-).

Probably would help if they had a place to put it.



First off, the waste problem is greatly exagerated. Using reprocessing,
the waste can be turned into useful reactor fuel. The problems with
reprocessing are political, not technical.

The waste is not really waste, anyway. It is a collection of isotopes,
many of which are radioactive at various levels. Generally the level
of radioactivity is inversely coorelated to the length of the half-life,
i.e. isotopes with a longer half-life have relatively low radioactivity.

After extracting the useful isotopes (cesium, etc for medical uses, et. al.),
the remainder can be reprocessed into useful fuel. The quite small amount
left after reprocessing can be easily sequestered in Yucca mountain or a
salt mine in Kansas until mankind finds a use for it.

Anyone who seriously believes that sequestration for 10000 years is
required doesn't understand the progress of technology. Only 100
years ago, there were no uses for Uranium, and Plutonium was basically
unknown (being man-made :-), I fully expect that mankind will find uses
for the remaining relatively low-level, long half-life waste long before
10000 years elapses, if nothing else, for low-power, long lasting RTG devices.

It would be quite foolish to dispose of the waste in some fashion where
we cannot get to it in the near future (as some wags have suggested shooting
into the sun - a suggestion that also evidences a lack of understanding of
orbital mechanics).

scott

China.

"George" wrote in message
...
:-).

Probably would help if they had a place to put it.

A typical light water power reactor produces somewhere between
10,000 and 50,000 cubic ft of radioactive waste per year,
mostly DAW and ion exchange media.

In terms of volume, the spent fuel is insignificant.

OTOH, the high volume waste is all short-lived isotopes that
will decay to near background levels in only a few hunder years.

--

FF

"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:P9qpe.2425
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...

I don't see much reason why rail lines couldn't be run down the medians
of
existing interstates, similarly to the commuter rail service in and out
of
Chicago. And there are plenty of *existing* rail lines on *existing*
rights of way that could be upgraded, doubtless at less expense than
leasing
*new* rights of way and constructing new lines.

Did you ever notice what _else_ is in those medians at most underpasses?
Concrete pillars....

So how hard is it to go one side or the other? That doesn't seem to have
been
much of a problem in Chicago; I can't imagine it would be more difficult
to
figure out anywhere else.

Where do you guys live? Along many of the interstates here in the
northeast, you'd be hard pressed to ride a scooter let alone put rail lines.
There is NO median, just a barrier. Drive I-95 from Philly to Boston and
see how much rail you can lay. I know a Plate B boxcar has an inside height
of 10' 7" but I don' tknow the outside. Bridge clearance could also be a
problem. McKinley cars are 18' high. That puts the median 5" below the
grade of the highway.

I'm sure the idea has merit in some areas, but it is not easy to do in
others.

Robatoy wrote:

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Simple fact--Americans like big cars. If we can't have big cars we'll
take big trucks.

We know this. That is the root of the problem. It is irresponsible to be
blowing that much of a finite resource for absolutely no reason other
than the gratification of spoiled consumers. The feed that those
monsters run on is going to run out.

The feed that mo-peds run on is also going to run out. So what? You think
that economizing is going to change that?

I guess we'll leave that for our kids to worry about?

And you think that if everybody drives little bitty cars the oil won't ever
run out? Or do you favor leaving it to your kids' kids? How is that
better?

When the price of oil rises to such a level that something else is
economically preferable then we'll stop burning oil. So far it hasn't
happened.

Just asking questions..Thassall..

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article , "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

Where do you guys live? Along many of the interstates here in the
northeast, you'd be hard pressed to ride a scooter let alone put rail lines.
There is NO median, just a barrier. Drive I-95 from Philly to Boston and
see how much rail you can lay. I know a Plate B boxcar has an inside height
of 10' 7" but I don' tknow the outside. Bridge clearance could also be a
problem. McKinley cars are 18' high. That puts the median 5" below the
grade of the highway.

I live in the Midwest, specifically Indianapolis, where we're not all jammed
together like sardines in a can.

As noted previously, the City of Chicago has managed to solve this problem for
commuter rail.

I'm sure the idea has merit in some areas, but it is not easy to do in
others.



--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Robatoy wrote:

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

For openers, my 'idealistic' view is set in the future when there are no
airlines to compete with, when fossil-fuel is priced through the roof
or simply not available; planes don't compete.

By that time they'll all be burning hydrogen anyway. Can't build a scramjet
that runs on oil. You really think that the engineers of the world are so
limited in their abilities that they will be unable to build an aircraft
that runs on anything but fossil fuels?

I also didn't confine my
suggestion for a railroad to a single line.You, however, did.

Actually, you did--you said a two track railroad from coast to coast.

Well, that gets you from New York to Los Angeles or wherever, but how do
you
get from Miami to Seattle? It's not as simple as building a railroad--if
it were then the railroads would still be a high profit operation. For
long haul passenger service, over that distance, your train is going to
have to be going 400 or so MPH to compete with the airlines and then
you're still going to have to run it cheaper, which may be difficult
considering all the infrastructure you have to maintain.

For freight, who cares how
fast it goes?
When stuff absolutely, positively has the get there....whenever.
They will still want lettuce in New York City.

So? It has to be transported at high speed? It isn't transported at high
speed now now so why would it need to be in the future?

That alone will be a huge step in the right direction.
BTW.. build in some accountability in that new system, i.e. Do Not
privatize it.

Huh? You're trusting the _government_?
Maybe the likes of Bechtel and Haliburton will be a better idea?
oops...they ARE the government....now.

Why are the options the government, Bechtel, or Halliburton? Are they
running all the nuke plants now?

There will have been some changes in the government by then.
There will have been a revolution. The mobs get really ****y when they
can't drive their SUV's

Why would "the mobs" be unable to drive their SUVs in your gloom and doom
future? It may come as a shock to you that automobiles run quite nicely on
a number of non-fossil fuels.

Staff the whole damn thing with military vets.

Which does what? The guys who retire from NR already go into reactor
operation and who else do you have that is going to be any more capable
than your average civilian?
I was just looking for a job for the warriors who won't be needed in
times of world piece.

Now let's see, the oil has run out, we can't run out SUVs, and there's going
to be no war as the world scrabbles over the pieces?

Can't fight really big wars without fuel.

Tell that to Hannibal. The Romans lost 100,000 men in a single day at
Cannae--that's one fourth as many as the US lost in the whole of WWII. And
the Romans ended up winning that war.

And what makes you think that lack of oil will render the military devoid of
fuel?

Besides, there will be virtually zero terrorists as there will be fewer
people ****ed at having been invaded for their resources... because
they'll be all out of resources.

You really think that Osama Bin Laden is "****ed at having been invaded for
their resources"?

I would hope that all those children who are now being left behind would
have been trained properly by the new government.

Trained to do what?


[snip]

So your plumber or carpenter or whatever is going to have to make ten
trips
in his Honda instead of one in the truck he uses now? How does that
benefit anybody? Or do you not consider ownership by a tradesman to be
"privately owned"?

You just added some variables again. I would allow for trades to operate
larger vehicles, of course. Your interpretation of my suggestion is
silly. Perhaps some guidelines would exist for trade vehicles to be more
efficient, hybrids of some sort.

Why? You are the one who worded it. Words have meaning. If you did not
mean what you wrote then you should have written what you meant.

Sorry, you're coming across as an idealist who hasn't really given his
ideas much thought.

I'm only seeing the big picture.

Actually, you're not seeing the big picture. You're only seeing that the
oil is going to run out, which it is no matter what we do, and not seeing
that the result will simply be the adoption of a different portable fuel.
That will have ramifications--what they are will depend on what is adopted,
but I doubt that the world is just going to roll over and freeze to death
in the dark because they weren't smart enough to find an alternative energy
source.

Others are better suited to nit-pick
the whole process to crawl. Let's form a study group and discuss what
colour to paint the railroad ties, eh?

You really shouldn't take me, or yourself so seriously.

Why not? If you're joking you need to put in the occasional emoticon or
some other such indicator.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Robatoy wrote:

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

And of course you're also planning to throttle down the Sun to just what
we
need so that it doesn't run out of hydrogen sooner than it has to. Or is
that too long a time frame for you to be concerned about? And you
criticize others for thinking short term. Shame, shame.

I am looking really hard to find the humour in this because you canNOT
be serious.

There is no humor. It's going to run out of hydrogen eventually. But I
guess that that's so far in the future that you don't care what generation
gets saddled with the problem.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Scott Lurndal wrote:

"George" writes:

"lgb" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,


And that's not even considering the waste disposal problem. All
industry has such a good record at cleaning up after itself :-).

Probably would help if they had a place to put it.



First off, the waste problem is greatly exagerated. Using reprocessing,
the waste can be turned into useful reactor fuel. The problems with
reprocessing are political, not technical.

The waste is not really waste, anyway. It is a collection of isotopes,
many of which are radioactive at various levels. Generally the level
of radioactivity is inversely coorelated to the length of the half-life,
i.e. isotopes with a longer half-life have relatively low radioactivity.

After extracting the useful isotopes (cesium, etc for medical uses, et.
al.),
the remainder can be reprocessed into useful fuel. The quite small amount
left after reprocessing can be easily sequestered in Yucca mountain or a
salt mine in Kansas until mankind finds a use for it.

Anyone who seriously believes that sequestration for 10000 years is
required doesn't understand the progress of technology. Only 100
years ago, there were no uses for Uranium, and Plutonium was basically
unknown (being man-made :-), I fully expect that mankind will find uses
for the remaining relatively low-level, long half-life waste long before
10000 years elapses, if nothing else, for low-power, long lasting RTG
devices.

It would be quite foolish to dispose of the waste in some fashion where
we cannot get to it in the near future (as some wags have suggested
shooting into the sun - a suggestion that also evidences a lack of
understanding of orbital mechanics).

Perhaps using nuclear rockets? An Orion could put quite a lot of nuclear
waste into the sun in a single go eg.

scott

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , Robatoy
wrote:

A Suburban to go deer-hunting, albeit overkill, would be somewhat
acceptable if that's all it was used for. Up here in Kanuckistan, you're
not allowed to shoot deer from a moving vehicle, Doug.



I don't know of any place where that *is* allowed.

I'm sorry, but I should have used a smileycon thinghy indicating my
attempt at humour. I could, in a pinch, actually visualize a 'Burb
blasting through the thicket with guns blazing, but I didn't really
think you would do that.

I was talking about using
the 'Burb to haul my hunting gear, and hopefully a dead deer or two, while
keeping everything enclosed and locked up. Depending on where I'm hunting
(private land vs. public) I'll walk between 800yd and 2mi to get to my
hunting
spot after I park.

Most of my friends are avid hunters. I get to eat lots of wild game. Had
some venison smoked sausage once, that I would like to have again. Damn
I like a good sausage. (That one had a bit of pork in it so it wouldn't
be too dry, I was told.)