On 5/4/2010 8:10 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 5/4/2010 7:42 AM, Robatoy wrote:
On May 3, 9:48 pm, Tim wrote:
On 5/3/2010 7:19 PM, wrote:





On Mon, 3 May 2010 16:27:27 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On May 3, 5:32 pm, wrote:

My folks lived through the Great Depression, and I inherited the attitude
that you scrape the peanut butter jar clean, not because you can't afford
another one but just because waste is a bad idea. So when I see a lone
driver using an Escalade or Suburban to go pick up a carton of milk it makes
me shake my head.

What about flying Al Gore's fat ass in a Gulfstream to a meeting on
environmental responsibility?

You "anti-environmental responsibility" folks aren't looking too
bright at present.

Not even close.

I spent several years in the 1980s in the nuclear power consulting
business. It was the bozo environmentalists (aka "Those that flunked
Chemistry") that put us in the mess we're in today. They virulently
opposed further nuke generation and development. Had they been
properly ignored (nevermind the stench), we'd be generating massive
amounts of electricity today and innovating new/old technologies
like Pebble Beds, thereby making things like gas/electric hybrids
and full electric short-range vehicles viable. Instead, we remain
dependent upon oil ... because of the phony environmentalists and
their chowderheaded earth worshiping pantheism. So here's to
all of 'em, take a good look at who's been setting environmental
policy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElJFYwRtrH4

It always worries me when I find myself agreeing with you.

Make that two of us ... but we'll just have to both learn to live with it...

Learn to live with failure to make good decisions? Somehow that doesn't
strike me as a very good strategy...

Here's my weird thought for the day:

The drum major doesn't choose the parade route.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
On 5/3/2010 7:19 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2010 16:27:27 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On May 3, 5:32 pm, "DGDevin" wrote:


My folks lived through the Great Depression, and I inherited the
attitude
that you scrape the peanut butter jar clean, not because you can't
afford
another one but just because waste is a bad idea. So when I see a lone
driver using an Escalade or Suburban to go pick up a carton of milk it
makes
me shake my head.

What about flying Al Gore's fat ass in a Gulfstream to a meeting on
environmental responsibility?


You "anti-environmental responsibility" folks aren't looking too
bright at present.



Not even close.

I spent several years in the 1980s in the nuclear power consulting
business. It was the bozo environmentalists (aka "Those that flunked
Chemistry") that put us in the mess we're in today. They virulently
opposed further nuke generation and development. Had they been
properly ignored (nevermind the stench), we'd be generating massive
amounts of electricity today and innovating new/old technologies
like Pebble Beds, thereby making things like gas/electric hybrids
and full electric short-range vehicles viable. Instead, we remain
dependent upon oil ... because of the phony environmentalists and
their chowderheaded earth worshiping pantheism. So here's to
all of 'em, take a good look at who's been setting environmental
policy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElJFYwRtrH4

Mental Illness.

basilisk

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
The silence if deafening from the "Drill Baby Drill" crowd.

At least there is one small bright spot in this man made tragedy.

Lew



It is a BP made tragity... I believe that BP should change its businedss
model.... Perhaps go into demolition...

When a refinery blows in the Houston metro area, it has something to do with
BP.

"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...


Who gives a damn? The people that know best how to prevent disaster is
the people doing the drilling.


Actually in this case the people doing the drilling are the most likely to
create a disaster, they have a terrible track record.

On 5/4/2010 7:02 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Han wrote:
wrote in
m:

to move goods and people we require a lot of oil. Then, too, we do
so because we can. Like medical care, we can afford it, so we do it.

If we had a better, more efficient rail road system, we could move
goods by rail. Electrified, nuclear powered rail. It's a human
choice we made to put roads in, and as so many choices, some were
right, and some were wrong.

You're correct in thinking that nothing is more efficient that steel wheels
on a steel rail. The problem is, however, that there are very few railroads
that go to WalMart, the bodega down the street, and none at all that come to
my house.

True, although at one time our cities (and larger towns) enjoyed
neighborhood rail service in the form of streetcar lines...

In fact, I'd be surprised if more than 10% of the towns in this country
actually HAVE rail service. Also, rail cars are not like the UPS truck. Each
car's contents go entirely to one destination. Then, too, the efficiency of
railroads is built on scale. It takes time to load 200 rail cars, get them
all lined up and ready to go. Several days at least. I don't want to wait
that long for my donuts.

Fair enough, but I remember Railway Express moving packages around the
country without cumbersome delays - and that was before there were
computers to help optimize loading manifests and help train masters make
up trains.

The efficiency is not simply a matter of scale - it has a lot to do with
the ability to organize and plan the movement of goods, and there was a
/lot/ of merchandise moved very efficiently in LCL (less than carload)
quantities.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On May 4, 1:30*pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
On 5/4/2010 7:02 AM, HeyBub wrote:





Han wrote:
*wrote in
news:OJSdncaczd3ICELWnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@earthlink. com:

to move goods and people we require a lot of oil. Then, too, we do
so because we can. Like medical care, we can afford it, so we do it.

If we had a better, more efficient rail road system, we could move
goods by rail. *Electrified, nuclear powered rail. *It's a human
choice we made to put roads in, and as so many choices, some were
right, and some were wrong.

You're correct in thinking that nothing is more efficient that steel wheels
on a steel rail. The problem is, however, that there are very few railroads
that go to WalMart, the bodega down the street, and none at all that come to
my house.

True, although at one time our cities (and larger towns) enjoyed
neighborhood rail service in the form of streetcar lines...

In fact, I'd be surprised if more than 10% of the towns in this country
actually HAVE rail service. Also, rail cars are not like the UPS truck. Each
car's contents go entirely to one destination. Then, too, the efficiency of
railroads is built on scale. It takes time to load 200 rail cars, get them
all lined up and ready to go. Several days at least. I don't want to wait
that long for my donuts.

Fair enough, but I remember Railway Express moving packages around the
country without cumbersome delays - and that was before there were
computers to help optimize loading manifests and help train masters make
up trains.

The efficiency is not simply a matter of scale - it has a lot to do with
the ability to organize and plan the movement of goods, and there was a
/lot/ of merchandise moved very efficiently in LCL (less than carload)
quantities.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Of course it could be done much better in today's world. Much more
efficient dispatch, even more efficient locomotives, many could be
replaced with electric engines. Get those damned 747 Boeing Freight
planes out of the sky and those transcontinental trucks off the roads.
They send full truckloads of stuff coast-to-coast. Those are full van
loads. None of those truckers stop along the way to drop off a parcel
to Mrs Jones. The railway does what it does best, big loads, long
distances. Leave the micro stuff alone and set up a hub & spoke system
to feed it. Just like UPS does now, except feed the hubs with trains.
That would be a start.

On May 4, 8:56*am, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 04 May 2010 08:21:22 -0400, Jack Stein
wrote the following:

wrote:

Oh, the recent spike in gasoline prices? Nothing to do with supply and
demand, and everything to do with unregulated market speculators.

I'm still stuck on the fact the government makes more profit on a gallon
of gas than the people that invested 100's of billions to get the gas to
the pumps...

Why do you think they don't try to reduce prices on oil? *They make a
percentage, so the higher that is, the more money they rake in.

I'd be happy if the courts ruled out non-physical trading. One source
said that oil had been traded up to 100 times on paper, each with
profits, before it actually moved from one point to another, source to
purchaser. *That's a lot of useless markup.

That would certainly put a crimp in large users of oil, like
airlines. They'd probably all be bankrupt by now if they couldn't
deal in futures.

On May 4, 11:33*am, "Leon" wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message

...



Who gives a damn? *The people that know best how to prevent disaster is
the people doing the drilling.

Actually in this case the people doing the drilling are the most likely to
create a disaster, they have a terrible track record.

Actually, I think their track record is pretty amazing.

On 5/4/2010 1:40 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:

The /real/ winner produced the trucks that replaced the trains.

....and managed to get /you/ to provide and maintain the right of way

....and managed to reach into /your/ pocket when /they/ persisted in
making unwise decisions.

( just thought I'd add that )

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On 5/4/2010 1:30 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:
On 5/4/2010 7:02 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Han wrote:
wrote in
m:

to move goods and people we require a lot of oil. Then, too, we do
so because we can. Like medical care, we can afford it, so we do it.

If we had a better, more efficient rail road system, we could move
goods by rail. Electrified, nuclear powered rail. It's a human
choice we made to put roads in, and as so many choices, some were
right, and some were wrong.

You're correct in thinking that nothing is more efficient that steel
wheels
on a steel rail. The problem is, however, that there are very few
railroads
that go to WalMart, the bodega down the street, and none at all that
come to
my house.

True, although at one time our cities (and larger towns) enjoyed
neighborhood rail service in the form of streetcar lines...

In fact, I'd be surprised if more than 10% of the towns in this country
actually HAVE rail service. Also, rail cars are not like the UPS
truck. Each
car's contents go entirely to one destination. Then, too, the
efficiency of
railroads is built on scale. It takes time to load 200 rail cars, get
them
all lined up and ready to go. Several days at least. I don't want to wait
that long for my donuts.

Fair enough, but I remember Railway Express moving packages around the
country without cumbersome delays - and that was before there were
computers to help optimize loading manifests and help train masters make
up trains.

The efficiency is not simply a matter of scale - it has a lot to do with
the ability to organize and plan the movement of goods, and there was a
/lot/ of merchandise moved very efficiently in LCL (less than carload)
quantities.

FWIW, Europe, which railfans hold up as the poster child for rail
service, has trouble getting businesses to use rail for shipping. Their
passenger service is popular, but not their freight service.

In the US, there is no real hope for intercity passenger service, since
passenger trains are required (as part of the deal by which passenger
service was nationalized) to wait for freight trains. There's no way to
fix that except by abrogating the deal with the owners of the
infrastructure, which opens up a huge can of worms, or running the
passenger service on its own infrastructure independent of the freight
carriers, which would involve immense expense.

Larry Jaques wrote:

Why do you think they don't try to reduce prices on oil? They make a
percentage, so the higher that is, the more money they rake in.

Who makes a percentage? Certainly not the gas station owner. He makes a few
cents per gallon irrespective of the price. In fact, the more the price
increases, the lesser percentage he makes.

The distributor of gasoline is in a similar economic situation. He buys from
the refinery and does NOT mark up a percentage. He sells his bulk gasoline
at the market price.


I'd be happy if the courts ruled out non-physical trading. One source
said that oil had been traded up to 100 times on paper, each with
profits, before it actually moved from one point to another, source to
purchaser. That's a lot of useless markup.

A guy sells a warehouse of sardines for ten-cents per tin. The guy who
bought them at ten cents sells them the next day for fifteen. The company
that bought the sardines at fifteen cents turns around and sells them for a
quarter. The guy who bought them for a quarter goes to the warehouse and
opens a can.

He takes the opened can of sardines back to the guy who sold them for a
quarter and says: 'These sardines are rancid. They are inedible!"

He is advised: "Those sardines are not for eating - they are for buying and
selling."

Oh.

Humor aside, if you would bar non-physical trading, you would have to ban
insurance policies because that's what futures trading really is.

Perhaps the biggest reason Southwest Airlines made a (huge) profit last year
was because the years before they bought jet fuel contracts at $40 - $50 -
$60 per barrel. Then oil shot up to above $80/bbl.

Interestingly, Continental Airlines did the same thing, but had to sell
their contracts when they hit a small cash-flow problem. They then had to
pay the $80 and $90/bbl price later.

Sure, there's a lot of markup, but no one really loses. The creator of a
future resource (a barrel of oil, a pork belly, a bushel of soy beans)
cannot know what he'll get when the item is ready for market. He's willing
to sell this future product at a fixed price now so that he can plan for the
future. Likewise, the buyer is willing to commit to a future price now so
he, too, can plan.

Rule #1 in an MBA program: "Always trade an unknown variable price for a
known fixed one" is the basis for futures trading.

Even so, futures trading is an open market between a willing buyer and a
willing seller. Why would anyone want to interfere with that?

Neil Brooks wrote:
On May 4, 6:49 am, Jack Stein wrote:
Han wrote:
Jack Stein wrote
- september.org:

The people that know best how to prevent disaster is
the people doing the drilling.
They have to be pressed to consider the disasters and how to
prevent them, otherwise they will always be late. Quod erat
demonstrandum.

Nope! This only demonstrates that **** happens. The fact that despite
massive government regulations **** still happens. QED.


You should consider a course in Logic, Jack -- TAKING one; not
TEACHING one.

The salient question, of course, is: would these problems be MORE or
LESS common if regulation were reduced ?

QED, yourself ;-)

In a perfect world, there would be very little regulation but massive and
swift intervention when something goes wrong.

That is, governments should exist to enforce freely-entered contracts, not
write them or establish clauses. And enforce the contracts with an iron
hand. In the instant case there is an implied contract that the drillers of
oil will not cause harm to anyone due to the company's negligence.

On 05/04/2010 03:04 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:

Why do you think they don't try to reduce prices on oil? They make a
percentage, so the higher that is, the more money they rake in.

Who makes a percentage? Certainly not the gas station owner. He makes a few
cents per gallon irrespective of the price. In fact, the more the price
increases, the lesser percentage he makes.

Huh? Around here the prices across the city increase within half an
hour of each other. Decreases are less uniform.

If a station owner filled his tanks at price X and then raises his
prices a few percent when everyone else does, he's making that much more
profit.

Prices at the pump go up whenever there is the slightest hint of an
upcoming increase in the price of crude, and don't come down until crude
has been down for ages already.

Chris

Morris Dovey wrote:

Fair enough, but I remember Railway Express moving packages around the
country without cumbersome delays - and that was before there were
computers to help optimize loading manifests and help train masters
make up trains.


Heh!

Check your history. The Railway Express Agency started out as the Pony
Express. The REA was in business for over a hundred years - and never made a
profit.

On 05/04/2010 02:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

Uh, the BYD is nothing special. If they were selling an electric that
can be charged in under 5 minutes...

This is very difficult technically--it would require huge current flows
or very high voltages.

A quick-change battery "sled" would make more sense, but then it becomes
tricky unless all the various manufacturers standardize on a small
number of designs to allow service stations to stock them all.

Chris

On 05/04/2010 03:09 PM, HeyBub wrote:

That is, governments should exist to enforce freely-entered contracts, not
write them or establish clauses. And enforce the contracts with an iron
hand. In the instant case there is an implied contract that the drillers of
oil will not cause harm to anyone due to the company's negligence.

An interesting concept. I take it you think the free market would
provide competition enough to ensure that the contract terms are reasonable?

What if there isn't any competition in your area for whatever service
you desire? The single provider can set whatever terms they desire?
This might work for businesses with low barrier of entry, but for things
that require a large capital investment it doesn't work so well.

Taking the example of the 'net...what if nobody wants to offer you high
speed internet service because you live in a new subdivision and there
aren't enough people there to make it immediately profitable? Or what
if the phone and cable companies collude to offer similar jacked-up
rates for reduced service?

Chris

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Go look at the viability of your beloved "renewable energy" sources
*without* massive government subsidies. Then go look at the *net*
energy required to produce the final output. You will be amazed to
discover that, while there are particular places where things like
solar make sense, on the whole, the whole "renewable energy" thing
has been vastly oversold to a science-ignorant public.

Yup. There's only so much energy that falls on the surface of the earth.

I once computed that it would take a solar collector the size of the Los
Angeles basin (1200 sq miles) to provide power just to California. The down
side, apart from the cost to build and mainatain something that massive
would be that all the Angelenos would live in the dark.

Which, when you think on it, may not be so bad.

The alternative is to move the earth's orbit closer to the sun.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 03 May 2010 15:39:43 -0400, wrote the
following:

On Mon, 03 May 2010 15:23:48 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

On 5/3/2010 1:56 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 05/03/2010 05:30 AM, HeyBub wrote:

BP is probably the culprit here, but it's far to early to assign
blame. For
all we know, a Taliban militant could have set the rig on fire.

Conceivable, but that's no excuse for the blowout preventer to fail.

For all we know he could have dropped a hundred pounds of C4 down the
pipe while he was about it.


Pretty hard to drop anything "down the pipe" with all that oil coming
up under considerable pressure.

And planting explosives at 5000 foot depth? Without a support ship on
the surface for the robotic sub? Yeah, that's likely, too!

Bwhahahahaha!

Possible scenario: Perp "parks" his boat a mile off, scubas to the
downpipe. He runs a cable around the pipe with the explosive pack on
it, sets it, and lets it go. He uses his electric torpedo to get back
to the boat and takes off. Meanwhile, the explosive pack is weighted
so it follows the pipe to the ocean floor where it explodes.

Probable scenario 1: GS bets big, hires oil driller to sabotage the
unit for a percentage.

Probable scenario 2: Oil companies decide this is the best way today
to increase their profits. Money filters down and it's done.

--
Courage is the power to let go of the familiar.
-- Raymond Lindquist


Scenario 3: Driller takes shortcuts to save money. Doesn't install excess
flow valve. Uses a faulty safety shut-off. Uses crewmen who speak several
different languages confounding instructions..............and safety
measures.

Max

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Steve wrote:
On 2010-05-02 22:55:22 -0400, "J. Clarke"
said:
So why don't you apply for a job showing these people you consider to
be incompetent how it's done?

Engineering is always trivially easy to people who don't actually
have to do it.

Listen, butthead -- I didn't say I had answers, but I did say the
talent charged with having the answers failed. So, yes, my summation
is easy, but not particularly trivial.

If you've got the engineering savvy, use it.

Otherwise, you're trivial, and so is your challenge.

But you don't know what went wrong. You don't even know what you don't
know. The problem may have been an engineering failure, a human mistake, a
terrorist attack, a rogue submarine, a freak wave, or even a
previously-unknown monster from the deep.



Or even a reaction from the giant asteroid that hit the region awhile ago.
(ok, *quite* awhile)
Or a deep sea vent bent the pipe.
Or Pelosi and Reed hired the job done.

Max (whenever you all get thru "drilling" put the project together and let's
move on)

On 05/04/2010 03:22 PM, HeyBub wrote:

You are correct that we don't have a solution to nuclear waste.

We have LOTS of solutions.

* We can encase the waste in molten glass and dump it in the Marianna's
Trench
* We can liquify it an inject it into a salt dome
* We can concentrate it and rocket it into the sun

and so on. There are probably a hundred viable solutions.


Actually we're probably better off re-using it. Most current "nuclear
waste" is actually still a pretty good fuel source and can be
reprocessed. It's currently cheaper to just use freshly-mined uranium,
which is why we're not doing it.

Also, new reactor designs like the "travelling wave" reactor are
expected to produce far less waste since they basically breed their own
fuel from depleted uranium right before they react it. This allows them
to operate much more efficiently. They're also in theory capable of
re-using their own fuel and the waste from current light-water reactors.

Chris

On 5/4/2010 5:15 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 05/04/2010 02:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

Uh, the BYD is nothing special. If they were selling an electric that
can be charged in under 5 minutes...

This is very difficult technically--it would require huge current flows
or very high voltages.

Yes, it's difficult technically. If the Chinese are so smart though
they should be able to figure out a way to do it. If they can't, then
they aren't any smarter than anybody else.

A quick-change battery "sled" would make more sense, but then it becomes
tricky unless all the various manufacturers standardize on a small
number of designs to allow service stations to stock them all.

Yep.

The only system that is proven to work and give generally satisfactory
performance is fuel cells.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 5/4/2010 3:15 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 5/3/2010 11:05 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 5/3/2010 9:18 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Han" wrote in message
...
"J. Clarke" wrote in
:
Han wrote:
One good thing may be that in the armer Gulf more of the sticky
and
toxic components will evaporate before getting into the
ecosystems.
(I can hope, can't I?).

Nahh, when the volatiles evaporate, that's when the sticky stuff
gets
_real_ sticky. And if you've lived in that area you'll have
experienced slowly sinking into a paved road if you stand still too
long.

As a child I spent time on the Dutch North Sea beaches. Dad carried
a
bottle of turpentine or some such so we could was the tar of our
feet
before going home. Those tarballs were probably from fuel oil from
the
ships going by, but were annoying nevertheless. Never thought about
them
as particularly toxic when they were tar balls. Really liquid oil,
like
what floated on the Rhine were we swam, that was something else ...

The hotels in Santa Barbara have tar remover along with the shampoo
and
soap.

However the oil in Santa Barbara is from a purely natural source.


So is the oil in the Gulf.

The oil in Santa Barbara was there before humans, it is not the result
of drilling or industry or any other activity of humans.



As is the oil in the Gulf. Both sources have been drilled.

Check again. Santa Barbara has a natural oil seep.


The Gulf probably has some. In both cases, the oil is Natural. In the case
of the current Gulf blowout, the amount of oil is likely a drop in the
bucket when compared to natural leakage.

wrote in message
...
On May 4, 11:33 am, "Leon" wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message

...



Who gives a damn? The people that know best how to prevent disaster is
the people doing the drilling.

Actually in this case the people doing the drilling are the most likely to
create a disaster, they have a terrible track record.

Actually, I think their track record is pretty amazing.

Amazingly bad? BP has always had a bad reputation in Houston as being
riddled with fines for safety violations and that was before their
refineries started blowing up in the Houston area.

On 5/4/2010 4:13 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

Fair enough, but I remember Railway Express moving packages around the
country without cumbersome delays - and that was before there were
computers to help optimize loading manifests and help train masters
make up trains.

Heh!

Check your history. The Railway Express Agency started out as the Pony
Express. The REA was in business for over a hundred years - and never made a
profit.

I'm willing to concede the profitability point (even without checking it
out) - but my packages always arrived and AFAIK the packages my mom sent
always reached their destination intact and on time.

Shipments from the left coast took just under a week - and my most
recent order, a set of T-handle metric ball drivers from an outfit in
NJ, was projected to spend a full week traveling UPS ground.

From my perspective, it would appear that UPS has leveraged information
technology to produce a profit doing the same job at approximately the
same performance level delivered by REA in the 1940's...

....except, of course, for coast-to-coast overnight and second-day air.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Tue, 4 May 2010 19:03:16 -0500, "Leon"
wrote the following:


wrote in message
...
On May 4, 11:33 am, "Leon" wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message

...



Who gives a damn? The people that know best how to prevent disaster is
the people doing the drilling.

Actually in this case the people doing the drilling are the most likely to
create a disaster, they have a terrible track record.

Actually, I think their track record is pretty amazing.

Amazingly bad? BP has always had a bad reputation in Houston as being
riddled with fines for safety violations and that was before their
refineries started blowing up in the Houston area.

OMG, I just realized why BP has so many problems. They're Brits so
they're using Lucas: Prince of Darkness 'lecterkal items.

--
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian,
or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up
to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
--Thomas Paine

On Tue, 04 May 2010 16:17:52 -0600, Chris Friesen
wrote the following:

On 05/04/2010 03:22 PM, HeyBub wrote:

You are correct that we don't have a solution to nuclear waste.

We have LOTS of solutions.

* We can encase the waste in molten glass and dump it in the Marianna's
Trench
* We can liquify it an inject it into a salt dome
* We can concentrate it and rocket it into the sun

and so on. There are probably a hundred viable solutions.


Actually we're probably better off re-using it. Most current "nuclear
waste" is actually still a pretty good fuel source and can be
reprocessed. It's currently cheaper to just use freshly-mined uranium,
which is why we're not doing it.

Also, new reactor designs like the "travelling wave" reactor are
expected to produce far less waste since they basically breed their own
fuel from depleted uranium right before they react it. This allows them
to operate much more efficiently. They're also in theory capable of
re-using their own fuel and the waste from current light-water reactors.

Yabbut, Clintoon defunded the FAST reactor research and Obama is set
to do the same, I believe. We'd have had them by now and could recycle
95% of that high-level waste the damned Chicken Littles of the world
would just STFU. (Would someone make sure the libruls know that 95% is
a -large- amount? Thanks!)

--
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian,
or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up
to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
--Thomas Paine

On Tue, 4 May 2010 09:51:24 -0600, "Max"
wrote the following:

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote

On 5/4/2010 10:04 AM, Morris Dovey wrote:

Here's my weird thought for the day:

The drum major doesn't choose the parade route.

[That's weird alright, Lob.]


Here's mine:

7-11s are open 24 x 7 x 365 - why do they have door locks?

So the clerk can go pee?

"Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Manager. I thought that hole in that there safe
was for relieving myself into."

--
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian,
or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up
to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
--Thomas Paine

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 04 May 2010 08:21:22 -0400, Jack Stein
wrote the following:

wrote:

Oh, the recent spike in gasoline prices? Nothing to do with supply and
demand, and everything to do with unregulated market speculators.
I'm still stuck on the fact the government makes more profit on a gallon
of gas than the people that invested 100's of billions to get the gas to
the pumps...

Why do you think they don't try to reduce prices on oil?

Who is "they"?

If you look at all thats involved in getting oil out of the ground,
refined into gas, distributed to the pumps, and sell it at far less than
Pepsi, Coke, Water and other significant products AFTER taxing the ****
out of it, I generally think about how "they" manage to keep the price
so low.

They make a
percentage, so the higher that is, the more money they rake in.

Thats pretty much how everything works. The percentage raked in by the
oil companies is far, far less than that raked in by Coke, Pepsi, Polar
water, MicroSloth, and a slew of other companies. Oil companies
generally rake in less than 7% profit, BP will rake in a whole lot less
than that this year.

I'd be happy if the courts ruled out non-physical trading. One source
said that oil had been traded up to 100 times on paper, each with
profits, before it actually moved from one point to another, source to
purchaser. That's a lot of useless markup.

The truth is, Ali Bama, AlGore and the gang won't rest until gas is
around $8 gallon so they can sell their hot air fans to the unsuspecting
public.

--
Jack
Got Change: Inconvenient Truth ===== Convenient Lies!
http://jbstein.com

Neil Brooks wrote:
On May 4, 6:49 am, Jack Stein wrote:

You should consider a course in Logic, Jack -- TAKING one; not
TEACHING one.

The last time I took a course in logic, the TEACHER started the course
proving logically that the moon is made of green cheese...

The salient question, of course, is: would these problems be MORE or
LESS common if regulation were reduced ?

Considering logically the amount of investment at risk if things go
awry, the salient answer the that salient question is: No more, No less.

--
Jack
God save us from concerned citizens and the politicians who listen to
them!
http://jbstein.com

Max wrote:

Scenario 3: Driller takes shortcuts to save money.

The amount of money spent by "drillers" to minimize risk would boggle
your mind.

Doesn't install excess flow valve. Uses a faulty safety shut-off. Uses crewmen who
speak several different languages confounding
instructions..............and safety measures.

Yeah, I can see them using a faulty shut off valve to save some money on
a multi-BILLION $ oil platform. We are talking private business, not
government. Only government would knowingly do something so stupid.

--
Jack
Got Change: More Unemployment! More Debt! More Fraud! Less Freedom!
http://jbstein.com

Max wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote

Speaking of which, it seems that "This is the worst spill ever" is
baloney (shocking news, the media isn't doing their homework):

http://www.redstate.com/neokong/2010...st-spill-ever/

Could it be that there is political agenda afoot? Shocking, just
shocking.

My best guess is that *this* spill isn't over yet.
Yogi once said, "It ain't over 'til its over."

So you agree that it is political bull**** to say this is the "worst
spill ever" until it is known it actually is, which at this point it
isn't even close?

--
Jack
Got Change: God Bless America ====== God Damn Amerika!
http://jbstein.com

On May 4, 7:03*pm, "Leon" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On May 4, 11:33 am, "Leon" wrote:

"Jack Stein" wrote in message

...

Who gives a damn? The people that know best how to prevent disaster is
the people doing the drilling.

Actually in this case the people doing the drilling are the most likely to
create a disaster, they have a terrible track record.

Actually, I think their track record is pretty amazing.

Amazingly bad? *BP has always had a bad reputation in Houston as being
riddled with fines for safety violations and that was before their
refineries started blowing up in the Houston area.

Considering the quantities of quite flammable products sold (at
amazingly low prices), no, it's amazing there aren't more problems.

On May 5, 8:15*am, Jack Stein wrote:
Max wrote:
Scenario 3: *Driller takes shortcuts to save money. *

The amount of money spent by "drillers" to minimize risk would boggle
your mind.

Doesn't install excess flow valve. *Uses a faulty safety shut-off. Uses crewmen who
speak several different languages confounding
instructions..............and safety measures.

Yeah, I can see them using a faulty shut off valve to save some money on
a multi-BILLION $ oil platform. *We are talking private business, not
government. *Only government would knowingly do something so stupid.

No, government would pay *more* for the faulty valve. They would get
more in campaign contributions, though.

On May 4, 4:28*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Go look at the viability of your beloved "renewable energy" sources
*without* massive government subsidies. *Then go look at the *net*
energy required to produce the final output. *You will be amazed to
discover that, while there are particular places where things like
solar make sense, on the whole, the whole "renewable energy" thing
has been vastly oversold to a science-ignorant public.

Yup. There's only so much energy that falls on the surface of the earth.

I once computed that it would take a solar collector the size of the Los
Angeles basin (1200 sq miles) to provide power just to California. The down
side, apart from the cost to build and mainatain something that massive
would be that all the Angelenos would live in the dark.

Which, when you think on it, may not be so bad.

The alternative is to move the earth's orbit closer to the sun.

We're gonna need a bigger boat!

"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...
Max wrote:

Scenario 3: Driller takes shortcuts to save money.

The amount of money spent by "drillers" to minimize risk would boggle your
mind.

Doesn't install excess flow valve. Uses a faulty safety shut-off. Uses
crewmen who speak several different languages confounding
instructions..............and safety measures.

Yeah, I can see them using a faulty shut off valve to save some money on a
multi-BILLION $ oil platform. We are talking private business, not
government. Only government would knowingly do something so stupid.

--
Jack
Got Change: More Unemployment! More Debt! More Fraud! Less Freedom!
http://jbstein.com



Hmm. Do I detect a little confirmational bias there? {:-)

Max (somewhat familiar with BPs "shortcuts")

On 5/5/2010 8:15 AM, Jack Stein wrote:

Yeah, I can see them using a faulty shut off valve to save some money on
a multi-BILLION $ oil platform. We are talking private business, not
government. Only government would knowingly do something so stupid.

Ford Pinto, Lockheed Electra, exploding laptop batteries, Chinese
drywall,...

....and just for giggles, I did searches on 'design defects' and got
3,480,000 web hits and 2,110,000 image hits.

Stupidity appears to be evenly distributed.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

"Morris Dovey" wrote ...

On 5/5/2010 8:15 AM, Jack Stein wrote:

Yeah, I can see them using a faulty shut off valve to save some money on
a multi-BILLION $ oil platform. We are talking private business, not
government. Only government would knowingly do something so stupid.

Ford Pinto, Lockheed Electra, exploding laptop batteries, Chinese
drywall,...

...and just for giggles, I did searches on 'design defects' and got
3,480,000 web hits and 2,110,000 image hits.

Stupidity appears to be evenly distributed.

Who was it who said (paraphrased), " If you have trouble understanding the
concept of infinity, just look at human stupidity"?

On Wed, 05 May 2010 08:35:22 -0400, Jack Stein
wrote the following:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 04 May 2010 08:21:22 -0400, Jack Stein
wrote the following:

wrote:

Oh, the recent spike in gasoline prices? Nothing to do with supply and
demand, and everything to do with unregulated market speculators.
I'm still stuck on the fact the government makes more profit on a gallon
of gas than the people that invested 100's of billions to get the gas to
the pumps...

Why do you think they don't try to reduce prices on oil?

Who is "they"?

If you look at all thats involved in getting oil out of the ground,
refined into gas, distributed to the pumps, and sell it at far less than
Pepsi, Coke, Water and other significant products AFTER taxing the ****
out of it, I generally think about how "they" manage to keep the price
so low.

Can you say "economies of scale", Jack? I knew you could.


They make a
percentage, so the higher that is, the more money they rake in.

Thats pretty much how everything works. The percentage raked in by the
oil companies is far, far less than that raked in by Coke, Pepsi, Polar
water, MicroSloth, and a slew of other companies. Oil companies
generally rake in less than 7% profit, BP will rake in a whole lot less
than that this year.

I'd be happy if the courts ruled out non-physical trading. One source
said that oil had been traded up to 100 times on paper, each with
profits, before it actually moved from one point to another, source to
purchaser. That's a lot of useless markup.

The truth is, Ali Bama, AlGore and the gang won't rest until gas is
around $8 gallon so they can sell their hot air fans to the unsuspecting
public.

True. Ali Bama? New one, deeper than it first looks. vbg
I'd been seeing a lot of Obama bin Biden along those lines, and I'm
still waiting for the other veil^H^H^H^Hshoe to drop.

--
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian,
or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up
to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
--Thomas Paine

On Wed, 05 May 2010 09:15:22 -0400, Jack Stein
wrote the following:

Max wrote:

Scenario 3: Driller takes shortcuts to save money.

The amount of money spent by "drillers" to minimize risk would boggle
your mind.

Doesn't install excess flow valve. Uses a faulty safety shut-off. Uses crewmen who
speak several different languages confounding
instructions..............and safety measures.

Yeah, I can see them using a faulty shut off valve to save some money on
a multi-BILLION $ oil platform. We are talking private business, not
government. Only government would knowingly do something so stupid.

Please, Jack. They're insured. While the ruination of an oil
platform wrecks the bidness for a couple weeks, it also causes the
price of all oil they sell to go up, so they're sitting much prettier
right now than they were a few weeks ago. Prices raise quickly and
drop slowly, so by the time it returns to normal, they'll have 50x
their investment in fines and replacement platforms. No worries.

--
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian,
or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up
to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
--Thomas Paine

On May 5, 10:30*am, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 05 May 2010 09:15:22 -0400, Jack Stein
wrote the following:

Max wrote:

Scenario 3: *Driller takes shortcuts to save money. *

The amount of money spent by "drillers" to minimize risk would boggle
your mind.

Doesn't install excess flow valve. *Uses a faulty safety shut-off. Uses crewmen who
speak several different languages confounding
instructions..............and safety measures.

Yeah, I can see them using a faulty shut off valve to save some money on
a multi-BILLION $ oil platform. *We are talking private business, not
government. *Only government would knowingly do something so stupid.

Please, Jack. *They're insured. *While the ruination of an oil
platform wrecks the bidness for a couple weeks, it also causes the
price of all oil they sell to go up, so they're sitting much prettier
right now than they were a few weeks ago. Prices raise quickly and
drop slowly, so by the time it returns to normal, they'll have 50x
their investment in fines and replacement platforms. No worries.

Hmm, haven't noticed the price go up significantly in the last week or
two.