On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 11:32:43 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Jul 8, 10:46*am, Dave Balderstone
wrote:
In article
,

Robatoy wrote:
Oh wait... these windmills are 'instant ON'....no cost for them to sit
there other than the bleed to feed the creative funding packages.

And the solar farms, too...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/05/solar-showdown-weeds-vs-silicon/

Dead technology...

I followed a few links from that site you posted and I hadn't thought
about the vulnerability of such installations.
One AK47 and 20 clips of ammo, there goes a big chunk of a farm. One
bullet per panel.

Most utilities are vulnerable to terrorism. It's a sad fact of life.

--
Happiness lies in the joy of achievement and the thrill of creative effort.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

Wonder why this doesn't come as any surprise?

http://tinyurl.com/64bgvt8

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

Wonder why this doesn't come as any surprise?

http://tinyurl.com/64bgvt8

Lew

Oh hell no... "we're safe - we have a great safety record..."

--

-Mike-

On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 23:42:24 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

Wonder why this doesn't come as any surprise?

http://tinyurl.com/64bgvt8

Lew

Oh hell no... "we're safe - we have a great safety record..."

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

sigh

Slaps on the hands and fines for
1) personnel who didn't update the phone numbers for safety personnel
and
2) personnel allowing training lapses
are in order.

And update those insecure buildings, guys, but don't scream.

P.S: They DO have a great safety record. More people dies of the top
ten everyday accidents each year than have -ever- died from non-bomb
nuclear accidents. You said you were pro nuclear energy, Mike, so
stop siding with the Chicken Littles, huh?

--
Learning to ignore things is one of the great paths to inner peace.
-- Robert J. Sawyer

Bottom line with nuke plants:

One design or operational (1) screw up is three (3) too many.

The risks are simply too large at this point in time.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:4e406b92$0$27968
:

Bottom line with nuke plants:

One design or operational (1) screw up is three (3) too many.

The risks are simply too large at this point in time.

Lew

Remember the Air France plane that disappeared over the Middle Atlantic
some time back? On its way from Brazil, it ran into bad weather. The
pilots were not too experienced/trained, and didn't read the
malfunctioning pitot tube(s) speed indicators with enough suspicion.
Those pitot tubes were KNOWN to be prone to icing up. As a result, they
pointed the nose up, not down, and stalled the plane into the ocean. A
clear example of a known defect, that normally doesn't result in really
bad things, but, obviously, here it did. The same with nukes. There are
a number of known bad things in design of the totality of some of the
plants and nobody does anything until it is too late. Certainly with
Chernobyl and Fukushima (sp?). That does NOT mean nukes are inherently
bad, just that some things with some nukes are bad, and should be fixed.

As has been pointed out before, more coal workers have died per year than
all the people who have died from nuke accidents.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 09 Aug 2011 01:52:48 GMT, Han wrote:

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:4e406b92$0$27968
:

Bottom line with nuke plants:

One design or operational (1) screw up is three (3) too many.

The risks are simply too large at this point in time.

OHMIGOD! Poor Lew. His aluminum hat has evidently fallen off again.


Remember the Air France plane that disappeared over the Middle Atlantic
some time back? On its way from Brazil, it ran into bad weather. The
pilots were not too experienced/trained, and didn't read the
malfunctioning pitot tube(s) speed indicators with enough suspicion.
Those pitot tubes were KNOWN to be prone to icing up. As a result, they
pointed the nose up, not down, and stalled the plane into the ocean. A

A 35,000' drop is an awful lot for a stall without any recovery.
I have to question that conclusion. Got a cite for it? If nothing
else, even a fairly newly licensed pilot would have a better feel for
pitch attitude than that would indicate.


clear example of a known defect, that normally doesn't result in really
bad things, but, obviously, here it did. The same with nukes. There are
a number of known bad things in design of the totality of some of the
plants and nobody does anything until it is too late. Certainly with
Chernobyl and Fukushima (sp?). That does NOT mean nukes are inherently
bad, just that some things with some nukes are bad, and should be fixed.

Absolutely, dear sir.


As has been pointed out before, more coal workers have died per year than
all the people who have died from nuke accidents.

Cars, coal, stairs, pools. The list is quite large.

--
We are always the same age inside.
-- Gertrude Stein

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

A 35,000' drop is an awful lot for a stall without any recovery.
I have to question that conclusion. Got a cite for it? If nothing
else, even a fairly newly licensed pilot would have a better feel for
pitch attitude than that would indicate.

I read this somewhere. Remember, the plane was buffeted by really bad
weather, the instruments gave conflicting readings, probably was near pitch
black. There was somewhere a preliminary reading of the black boxes that
were finally recovered. A miracle in itselfthat they were found, in the
middle of the ocean, no reliable position known until just about then.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 09 Aug 2011 16:23:06 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

A 35,000' drop is an awful lot for a stall without any recovery.
I have to question that conclusion. Got a cite for it? If nothing
else, even a fairly newly licensed pilot would have a better feel for
pitch attitude than that would indicate.

I read this somewhere. Remember, the plane was buffeted by really bad
weather, the instruments gave conflicting readings, probably was near pitch
black.

Yeah, if they were in the middle of a thunderhead, I guess their
bodies wouldh't have the opportunity to stabilize long enough to
discern which was was up.


There was somewhere a preliminary reading of the black boxes that
were finally recovered. A miracle in itselfthat they were found, in the
middle of the ocean, no reliable position known until just about then.

I _guess_!

--
Fear not those who argue but those who dodge.
-- Marie Ebner von Eschenbach

The black boxes have locating beacon transmitters in them and are designed
to be found easily.

------------

"Han" wrote in message ...
I read this somewhere. Remember, the plane was buffeted by really bad
weather, the instruments gave conflicting readings, probably was near pitch
black. There was somewhere a preliminary reading of the black boxes that
were finally recovered. A miracle in itselfthat they were found, in the
middle of the ocean, no reliable position known until just about then.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Josepi" wrote in
:

The black boxes have locating beacon transmitters in them and are
designed to be found easily.

Yes, but the ocean is big, real big, and I'm pretty sure that a) the range
of the transmitter has limits, and b) the powersource is finite. When they
did find the boxes they were a bit surprised they still were transmitting
after how long, a year??
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote in
:

"Josepi" wrote in
:

The black boxes have locating beacon transmitters in them and are
designed to be found easily.

Yes, but the ocean is big, real big, and I'm pretty sure that a) the
range of the transmitter has limits, and b) the powersource is finite.
When they did find the boxes they were a bit surprised they still
were transmitting after how long, a year??

Oops, 2 years after the crash. see he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Han" wrote:

As has been pointed out before, more coal workers have died per year
than
all the people who have died from nuke accidents.

---------------------------------
Does that include the long term (25 years) effects of both coal as
well as nukes?

BTW, helps to make the case to wean ourselves from fossil fuels as
quickly as possible.

Lew

On Aug 10, 7:02*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Han" wrote:
As has been pointed out before, more coal workers have died per year
than
all the people who have died from nuke accidents.

---------------------------------
Does that include the long term (25 years) effects of both coal as
well as nukes?

BTW, helps to make the case to wean ourselves from fossil fuels as
quickly as possible.

Lew

They're still calling them fossil fuels? Dude, they found crude and
tars on Titan!
Heavy hydrocarbons do NOT have to be from a plant-like origin.
Methanes and its derivatives do NOT have to be plant/****/flesh based.

I am not familiar with the incident.

Two years?... sounds almost impossible but, the battery technology is pretty
decent these days and with all the power saving techniques using burst
transmission and circuit shut down etc...

-------
"Han" wrote in message ...

Han wrote in
:
Oops, 2 years after the crash. see he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 8/10/2011 6:02 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Han" wrote:

As has been pointed out before, more coal workers have died per year
than
all the people who have died from nuke accidents.

---------------------------------
Does that include the long term (25 years) effects of both coal as
well as nukes?

BTW, helps to make the case to wean ourselves from fossil fuels as
quickly as possible.

Lew



And replace them with what, Lew?
Horses?

There is nothing in the wings that has near the power and portability
as gasoline. I would add that our problem is that we are 50 years late
deciding to make internal combustion effecent and clean. But we didn't
have the computer technology back then to do it.

Richard wrote in
news
On 8/10/2011 6:02 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Han" wrote:

As has been pointed out before, more coal workers have died per year
than
all the people who have died from nuke accidents.

---------------------------------
Does that include the long term (25 years) effects of both coal as
well as nukes?

BTW, helps to make the case to wean ourselves from fossil fuels as
quickly as possible.

Lew



And replace them with what, Lew?
Horses?

Reminds me why the automobile was hailed as the solution to horse manure
pollution in (at least) New York City.

There is nothing in the wings that has near the power and portability
as gasoline. I would add that our problem is that we are 50 years late
deciding to make internal combustion effecent and clean. But we didn't
have the computer technology back then to do it.

Apart from nuclear, there is water, wind, solar and more renewable
sources. Battery technology is now so far along that even tugboats are
equipped and are saving (in hybrid mode) 40-60% of their diesel
consumption. I'm not that sanguine about the "greenness" of
manufacturing high yield batteries, but that should also improve with
demand. For now, I think the only transportation that would be difficult
to replace is jet planes.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:

Apart from nuclear, there is water, wind, solar and more renewable
sources. Battery technology is now so far along that even tugboats
are equipped and are saving (in hybrid mode) 40-60% of their diesel
consumption. I'm not that sanguine about the "greenness" of
manufacturing high yield batteries, but that should also improve with
demand. For now, I think the only transportation that would be
difficult to replace is jet planes.

Batteries are not "fuel sources," they are "fuel storage devices." Just like
the gas tank on an automobile.

"Alternative energy sources" can do no more than nibble at the margins. All
those you mention make up less than 5% of our energy needs.

Of course if we poured billions upon billions into research and development,
we might be able to increase that to 10%.

On 8/11/2011 7:11 AM, Han wrote:
wrote in
news
On 8/10/2011 6:02 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Han" wrote:

As has been pointed out before, more coal workers have died per year
than
all the people who have died from nuke accidents.

---------------------------------
Does that include the long term (25 years) effects of both coal as
well as nukes?

BTW, helps to make the case to wean ourselves from fossil fuels as
quickly as possible.

Lew



And replace them with what, Lew?
Horses?

Reminds me why the automobile was hailed as the solution to horse manure
pollution in (at least) New York City.

There is nothing in the wings that has near the power and portability
as gasoline. I would add that our problem is that we are 50 years late
deciding to make internal combustion effecent and clean. But we didn't
have the computer technology back then to do it.

Apart from nuclear, there is water, wind, solar and more renewable
sources. Battery technology is now so far along that even tugboats are
equipped and are saving (in hybrid mode) 40-60% of their diesel
consumption.

So when you mention battery technology being so far along, do you
consider the down side that it is a nasty business to be disposing of
the spent batteries? Typically the battery cars life cycle from
beginning to end today use more energy and pollute more during the
manufacturing, consumer operation, and disposal process than the Hummer.

The electrics look good if you only consider the consumer benefit. They
are not any better for the environment during manufacture and disposal.





I'm not that sanguine about the "greenness" of
manufacturing high yield batteries, but that should also improve with
demand. For now, I think the only transportation that would be difficult
to replace is jet planes.

On Aug 11, 8:11*am, Han wrote:
Richard wrote innewst6dnfgWNud38t7TnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@earthlink. com:









On 8/10/2011 6:02 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Han" wrote:

As has been pointed out before, more coal workers have died per year
than
all the people who have died from nuke accidents.

---------------------------------
Does that include the long term (25 years) effects of both coal as
well as nukes?

BTW, helps to make the case to wean ourselves from fossil fuels as
quickly as possible.

Lew

And replace them with what, Lew?
Horses?

Reminds me why the automobile was hailed as the solution to horse manure
pollution in (at least) New York City.

There is nothing in the wings that has near the power and portability
as gasoline. *I would add that our problem is that we are 50 years late
deciding to make internal combustion effecent and clean. *But we didn't
have the computer technology back then to do it.

Apart from nuclear, there is water, wind, solar and more renewable
sources. *Battery technology is now so far along that even tugboats are
equipped and are saving (in hybrid mode) 40-60% of their diesel
consumption. *I'm not that sanguine about the "greenness" of
manufacturing high yield batteries, but that should also improve with
demand. *For now, I think the only transportation that would be difficult
to replace is jet planes.

LOL...Battery powered (heavy) planes...cool. So the runways need to be
15 miles, so what? There's always eminent domain.

Battery recycling and reprocessing has started. How efficient it is I do not
know.

------------------
"Leon" wrote in message
...
So when you mention battery technology being so far along, do you
consider the down side that it is a nasty business to be disposing of
the spent batteries? Typically the battery cars life cycle from
beginning to end today use more energy and pollute more during the
manufacturing, consumer operation, and disposal process than the Hummer.

The electrics look good if you only consider the consumer benefit. They
are not any better for the environment during manufacture and disposal.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...-plant-workers

Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) said Thursday that it has not been
able to locate 143 individuals working to restore the Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear power plant since May. The utility said it has no idea
if the 143 have been exposed to radiation and to what level.

According to a report from TEPCO given to the Ministry of Health,
Labor and Welfare, TEPCO hired many of the workers through
subcontractors from all over Japan for limited periods and kept no
records of their addresses. On any given day, TEPCO said it has had up
to 1,000 workers on rotating schedules at the stricken power plant.

Asahi Geino reported in May that subcontractors were hiring day
laborers to work at the plant. The daily remuneration was three times
that of regular day jobs if within the grounds of the reactor complex,
and 1.5 times higher if within the wider area now restricted due to
high radioactivity.

While safety measures are in place to keep workers’ daily exposure to
radiation within safe levels, claims for compensation due to sickness
from overexposure are unlikely to be paid out, the magazine reported.

and....

Japan ignored own radiation forecasts from very beginning.......
http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...very-beginning

And.....

Gov't to lift some evacuation advisories around nuclear plant.....
http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...-nuclear-plant

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

Apart from nuclear, there is water, wind, solar and more renewable
sources. Battery technology is now so far along that even tugboats
are equipped and are saving (in hybrid mode) 40-60% of their diesel
consumption. I'm not that sanguine about the "greenness" of
manufacturing high yield batteries, but that should also improve with
demand. For now, I think the only transportation that would be
difficult to replace is jet planes.

Batteries are not "fuel sources," they are "fuel storage devices."
Just like the gas tank on an automobile.

Right, but they are a necessity for electric automobile propulsion, don't
you think?

"Alternative energy sources" can do no more than nibble at the
margins. All those you mention make up less than 5% of our energy
needs.

Not so clear to me. It will take time and money to get alternative
energy sources more integrated, but it may not be as expensive as you
think, and neither as far away

Of course if we poured billions upon billions into research and
development, we might be able to increase that to 10%.

Refurbishing current energy plants and building new ones does take money,
but it should be well-spent, not at the whim of big oil, etc.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 8/11/2011 7:11 AM, Han wrote:
wrote in
news
On 8/10/2011 6:02 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Han" wrote:

As has been pointed out before, more coal workers have died per
year than
all the people who have died from nuke accidents.

---------------------------------
Does that include the long term (25 years) effects of both coal as
well as nukes?

BTW, helps to make the case to wean ourselves from fossil fuels as
quickly as possible.

Lew



And replace them with what, Lew?
Horses?

Reminds me why the automobile was hailed as the solution to horse
manure pollution in (at least) New York City.

There is nothing in the wings that has near the power and
portability as gasoline. I would add that our problem is that we
are 50 years late deciding to make internal combustion effecent and
clean. But we didn't have the computer technology back then to do
it.

Apart from nuclear, there is water, wind, solar and more renewable
sources. Battery technology is now so far along that even tugboats
are equipped and are saving (in hybrid mode) 40-60% of their diesel
consumption.

So when you mention battery technology being so far along, do you
consider the down side that it is a nasty business to be disposing of
the spent batteries? Typically the battery cars life cycle from
beginning to end today use more energy and pollute more during the
manufacturing, consumer operation, and disposal process than the
Hummer.

The electrics look good if you only consider the consumer benefit.
They are not any better for the environment during manufacture and
disposal.

That's why I said the below. Reduce, reuse and recycling ... etc.

I'm not that sanguine about the "greenness" of
manufacturing high yield batteries, but that should also improve with
demand. For now, I think the only transportation that would be
difficult to replace is jet planes.






--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Robatoy wrote in news:1361353c-ebf6-469f-b516-
:

LOL...Battery powered (heavy) planes...cool. So the runways need to be
15 miles, so what? There's always eminent domain.

Back to the spruce goose, and seaplanes ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Somebody wrote:

"Alternative energy sources" can do no more than nibble at the
margins. All those you mention make up less than 5% of our energy
needs.
--------------------------------------
California is all ready approaching 20% of it's electrical energy
requirements from renewable sources and is expecting to reach 35%
within 10 years.

What is so funny about that is that today Texas produces more wind
power than California.

More research is needed, but we are gaining on it.

Lew

On Aug 11, 1:08*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Somebody wrote:
"Alternative energy sources" can do no more than nibble at the
margins. All those you mention make up less than 5% of our energy
needs.

--------------------------------------
California is all ready approaching 20% of it's electrical energy
requirements from renewable sources and is expecting to reach 35%
within 10 years.

What is so funny about that is that today Texas produces more wind
power than California.

I can think of a reason for that. g, d&r

Robatoy wrote in news:e4c4325c-5386-4ed1-9912-
:

On Aug 11, 1:08*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Somebody wrote:
"Alternative energy sources" can do no more than nibble at the
margins. All those you mention make up less than 5% of our energy
needs.

--------------------------------------
California is all ready approaching 20% of it's electrical energy
requirements from renewable sources and is expecting to reach 35%
within 10 years.

What is so funny about that is that today Texas produces more wind
power than California.

I can think of a reason for that. g, d&r

Don't hold back, Rob!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 8/11/2011 12:47 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in news:e4c4325c-5386-4ed1-9912-
:

On Aug 11, 1:08 pm, "Lew wrote:
Somebody wrote:
"Alternative energy sources" can do no more than nibble at the
margins. All those you mention make up less than 5% of our energy
needs.

--------------------------------------
California is all ready approaching 20% of it's electrical energy
requirements from renewable sources and is expecting to reach 35%
within 10 years.

What is so funny about that is that today Texas produces more wind
power than California.

I can think of a reason for that.g, d&r

Don't hold back, Rob!!



Do not poke Rob with that stick!

In article ,
says...

Han wrote:

Apart from nuclear, there is water, wind, solar and more renewable
sources. Battery technology is now so far along that even tugboats
are equipped and are saving (in hybrid mode) 40-60% of their diesel
consumption. I'm not that sanguine about the "greenness" of
manufacturing high yield batteries, but that should also improve with
demand. For now, I think the only transportation that would be
difficult to replace is jet planes.

Batteries are not "fuel sources," they are "fuel storage devices." Just like
the gas tank on an automobile.

"Alternative energy sources" can do no more than nibble at the margins. All
those you mention make up less than 5% of our energy needs.

Of course if we poured billions upon billions into research and development,
we might be able to increase that to 10%.

If you read the fine print you find that the electric drive had more to
do with the savings than did the batteries. And vessels with electric
drive are nothing new--the Navy built its first electric drive
battleship in 1918 and had electric drive carriers in service at the
start of WWII.

However they were not battery electric, they were steam-electric.

The big downsides have always been weight and cost.

On Aug 11, 3:13*pm, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 8/11/2011 12:47 PM, Han wrote:









*wrote in news:e4c4325c-5386-4ed1-9912-
:

On Aug 11, 1:08 pm, "Lew *wrote:
Somebody wrote:
"Alternative energy sources" can do no more than nibble at the
margins. All those you mention make up less than 5% of our energy
needs.

--------------------------------------
California is all ready approaching 20% of it's electrical energy
requirements from renewable sources and is expecting to reach 35%
within 10 years.

What is so funny about that is that today Texas produces more wind
power than California.

I can think of a reason for that.g, d&r

Don't hold back, Rob!!

Do not poke Rob with that stick!

ROTF

On 8/11/2011 7:11 AM, Han wrote:
wrote in
news
On 8/10/2011 6:02 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Han" wrote:

As has been pointed out before, more coal workers have died per year
than
all the people who have died from nuke accidents.

---------------------------------
Does that include the long term (25 years) effects of both coal as
well as nukes?

BTW, helps to make the case to wean ourselves from fossil fuels as
quickly as possible.

Lew



And replace them with what, Lew?
Horses?

Reminds me why the automobile was hailed as the solution to horse manure
pollution in (at least) New York City.

There is nothing in the wings that has near the power and portability
as gasoline. I would add that our problem is that we are 50 years late
deciding to make internal combustion effecent and clean. But we didn't
have the computer technology back then to do it.

Apart from nuclear, there is water, wind, solar and more renewable
sources. Battery technology is now so far along that even tugboats are
equipped and are saving (in hybrid mode) 40-60% of their diesel
consumption. I'm not that sanguine about the "greenness" of
manufacturing high yield batteries, but that should also improve with
demand. For now, I think the only transportation that would be difficult
to replace is jet planes.


Actually, I think the biggest problem is shipping - freighters.
Dig into that some.

Richard wrote in
m:

On 8/11/2011 7:11 AM, Han wrote:
wrote in
news
On 8/10/2011 6:02 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Han" wrote:

As has been pointed out before, more coal workers have died per
year than
all the people who have died from nuke accidents.

---------------------------------
Does that include the long term (25 years) effects of both coal as
well as nukes?

BTW, helps to make the case to wean ourselves from fossil fuels as
quickly as possible.

Lew



And replace them with what, Lew?
Horses?

Reminds me why the automobile was hailed as the solution to horse
manure pollution in (at least) New York City.

There is nothing in the wings that has near the power and
portability as gasoline. I would add that our problem is that we
are 50 years late deciding to make internal combustion effecent and
clean. But we didn't have the computer technology back then to do
it.

Apart from nuclear, there is water, wind, solar and more renewable
sources. Battery technology is now so far along that even tugboats
are equipped and are saving (in hybrid mode) 40-60% of their diesel
consumption. I'm not that sanguine about the "greenness" of
manufacturing high yield batteries, but that should also improve with
demand. For now, I think the only transportation that would be
difficult to replace is jet planes.


Actually, I think the biggest problem is shipping - freighters.
Dig into that some.

Depending on the size of the ship, nuclear could be an option, although I
don't think any ships apart from navy have been nuclear so far.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Aug 11, 8:21*pm, Han wrote:
Richard wrote innews:3cidnYDcyJKM0NnTnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@earthlink. com:









On 8/11/2011 7:11 AM, Han wrote:
*wrote in
newst6dnfgWNud38t7TnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@earthlink. com:

On 8/10/2011 6:02 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Han" wrote:

As has been pointed out before, more coal workers have died per
year than
all the people who have died from nuke accidents.

---------------------------------
Does that include the long term (25 years) effects of both coal as
well as nukes?

BTW, helps to make the case to wean ourselves from fossil fuels as
quickly as possible.

Lew

And replace them with what, Lew?
Horses?

Reminds me why the automobile was hailed as the solution to horse
manure pollution in (at least) New York City.

There is nothing in the wings that has near the power and
portability as gasoline. *I would add that our problem is that we
are 50 years late deciding to make internal combustion effecent and
clean. *But we didn't have the computer technology back then to do
it.

Apart from nuclear, there is water, wind, solar and more renewable
sources. *Battery technology is now so far along that even tugboats
are equipped and are saving (in hybrid mode) 40-60% of their diesel
consumption. *I'm not that sanguine about the "greenness" of
manufacturing high yield batteries, but that should also improve with
demand. *For now, I think the only transportation that would be
difficult to replace is jet planes.

Actually, I think the biggest problem is shipping - freighters.
Dig into that some.

Depending on the size of the ship, nuclear could be an option, although I
don't think any ships apart from navy have been nuclear so far.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Fuel is hard to get a hold of.

On 12 Aug 2011 00:21:02 GMT, Han wrote:

Richard wrote in
om:

On 8/11/2011 7:11 AM, Han wrote:
wrote in
news
On 8/10/2011 6:02 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Han" wrote:

As has been pointed out before, more coal workers have died per
year than
all the people who have died from nuke accidents.

---------------------------------
Does that include the long term (25 years) effects of both coal as
well as nukes?

BTW, helps to make the case to wean ourselves from fossil fuels as
quickly as possible.

Lew



And replace them with what, Lew?
Horses?

Reminds me why the automobile was hailed as the solution to horse
manure pollution in (at least) New York City.

There is nothing in the wings that has near the power and
portability as gasoline. I would add that our problem is that we
are 50 years late deciding to make internal combustion effecent and
clean. But we didn't have the computer technology back then to do
it.

Apart from nuclear, there is water, wind, solar and more renewable
sources. Battery technology is now so far along that even tugboats
are equipped and are saving (in hybrid mode) 40-60% of their diesel
consumption. I'm not that sanguine about the "greenness" of
manufacturing high yield batteries, but that should also improve with
demand. For now, I think the only transportation that would be
difficult to replace is jet planes.


Actually, I think the biggest problem is shipping - freighters.
Dig into that some.

Depending on the size of the ship, nuclear could be an option, although I
don't think any ships apart from navy have been nuclear so far.

Not Navy, but not commercial either (Atomic Energy, Maritime, and Commerce).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

The following is an interview with Mark Ruffalo that appeared in the
Huffington post today.

As they say, "If the foo s__ts, wear it,"

Lew

---------------------------------------

Mark Ruffalo Speaks Out For Tar Sands Action

Activist and actor Mark Ruffalo has joined the fight against the
Keystone XL pipeline, a pipeline from the tar sands in Canada to
refineries on the Gulf of Mexico.

In the video, Ruffalo says, “I’ve seen the kind of damage that
out-of-control energy development can do to water and to communities
near my own home, where fracking for natural gas is causing widespread
pollution ... All these problems are connected — we need to get off
fossil fuels.”

In a past interview with The Huffington Post, he said, "Either we're
going to go with some grace into green energy, or we're gonna go
kicking and screaming, but we're going by God. The world is already
leaving us behind. We're being left behind. America. Because the gas
and oil industry has a strangle hold on us. And our politicians."

On 8/11/2011 8:11 PM, Robatoy wrote:
On Aug 11, 8:21 pm, wrote:
wrote innews:3cidnYDcyJKM0NnTnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@earthlink. com:









On 8/11/2011 7:11 AM, Han wrote:
wrote in
news

On 8/10/2011 6:02 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Han" wrote:

As has been pointed out before, more coal workers have died per
year than
all the people who have died from nuke accidents.

---------------------------------
Does that include the long term (25 years) effects of both coal as
well as nukes?

BTW, helps to make the case to wean ourselves from fossil fuels as
quickly as possible.

Lew

And replace them with what, Lew?
Horses?

Reminds me why the automobile was hailed as the solution to horse
manure pollution in (at least) New York City.

There is nothing in the wings that has near the power and
portability as gasoline. I would add that our problem is that we
are 50 years late deciding to make internal combustion effecent and
clean. But we didn't have the computer technology back then to do
it.

Apart from nuclear, there is water, wind, solar and more renewable
sources. Battery technology is now so far along that even tugboats
are equipped and are saving (in hybrid mode) 40-60% of their diesel
consumption. I'm not that sanguine about the "greenness" of
manufacturing high yield batteries, but that should also improve with
demand. For now, I think the only transportation that would be
difficult to replace is jet planes.

Actually, I think the biggest problem is shipping - freighters.
Dig into that some.

Depending on the size of the ship, nuclear could be an option, although I
don't think any ships apart from navy have been nuclear so far.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Fuel is hard to get a hold of.


You have to be a first world government to be abe to affore fuel.

" wrote in
:

On 12 Aug 2011 00:21:02 GMT, Han wrote:

Richard wrote in
news:3cidnYDcyJKM0NnTnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@earthlink. com:

On 8/11/2011 7:11 AM, Han wrote:
wrote in
news
On 8/10/2011 6:02 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Han" wrote:

As has been pointed out before, more coal workers have died per
year than
all the people who have died from nuke accidents.

---------------------------------
Does that include the long term (25 years) effects of both coal
as well as nukes?

BTW, helps to make the case to wean ourselves from fossil fuels
as quickly as possible.

Lew



And replace them with what, Lew?
Horses?

Reminds me why the automobile was hailed as the solution to horse
manure pollution in (at least) New York City.

There is nothing in the wings that has near the power and
portability as gasoline. I would add that our problem is that we
are 50 years late deciding to make internal combustion effecent
and clean. But we didn't have the computer technology back then
to do it.

Apart from nuclear, there is water, wind, solar and more renewable
sources. Battery technology is now so far along that even tugboats
are equipped and are saving (in hybrid mode) 40-60% of their diesel
consumption. I'm not that sanguine about the "greenness" of
manufacturing high yield batteries, but that should also improve
with demand. For now, I think the only transportation that would
be difficult to replace is jet planes.


Actually, I think the biggest problem is shipping - freighters.
Dig into that some.

Depending on the size of the ship, nuclear could be an option,
although I don't think any ships apart from navy have been nuclear so
far.

Not Navy, but not commercial either (Atomic Energy, Maritime, and
Commerce).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

I stand corrected, Thanks!
So the potential is there. Probably cost and proliferation concerns
prevent any real implementations.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 12 Aug 2011 11:14:49 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 12 Aug 2011 00:21:02 GMT, Han wrote:

Richard wrote in
news:3cidnYDcyJKM0NnTnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@earthlink .com:

On 8/11/2011 7:11 AM, Han wrote:
wrote in
news
On 8/10/2011 6:02 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Han" wrote:

As has been pointed out before, more coal workers have died per
year than
all the people who have died from nuke accidents.

---------------------------------
Does that include the long term (25 years) effects of both coal
as well as nukes?

BTW, helps to make the case to wean ourselves from fossil fuels
as quickly as possible.

Lew



And replace them with what, Lew?
Horses?

Reminds me why the automobile was hailed as the solution to horse
manure pollution in (at least) New York City.

There is nothing in the wings that has near the power and
portability as gasoline. I would add that our problem is that we
are 50 years late deciding to make internal combustion effecent
and clean. But we didn't have the computer technology back then
to do it.

Apart from nuclear, there is water, wind, solar and more renewable
sources. Battery technology is now so far along that even tugboats
are equipped and are saving (in hybrid mode) 40-60% of their diesel
consumption. I'm not that sanguine about the "greenness" of
manufacturing high yield batteries, but that should also improve
with demand. For now, I think the only transportation that would
be difficult to replace is jet planes.


Actually, I think the biggest problem is shipping - freighters.
Dig into that some.

Depending on the size of the ship, nuclear could be an option,
although I don't think any ships apart from navy have been nuclear so
far.

Not Navy, but not commercial either (Atomic Energy, Maritime, and
Commerce).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

I stand corrected, Thanks!
So the potential is there. Probably cost and proliferation concerns
prevent any real implementations.

Yes, IIRC, proliferation and security were the primary concerns with the
Savanah. It certainly wasn't an economic success but it wasn't designed to
be, either.

On 8/11/2011 6:52 AM, Leon wrote:
On 8/11/2011 7:11 AM, Han wrote:
wrote in
news
On 8/10/2011 6:02 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Han" wrote:

As has been pointed out before, more coal workers have died per year
than
all the people who have died from nuke accidents.

---------------------------------
Does that include the long term (25 years) effects of both coal as
well as nukes?

BTW, helps to make the case to wean ourselves from fossil fuels as
quickly as possible.

Lew



And replace them with what, Lew?
Horses?

Reminds me why the automobile was hailed as the solution to horse manure
pollution in (at least) New York City.

There is nothing in the wings that has near the power and portability
as gasoline. I would add that our problem is that we are 50 years late
deciding to make internal combustion effecent and clean. But we didn't
have the computer technology back then to do it.

Apart from nuclear, there is water, wind, solar and more renewable
sources. Battery technology is now so far along that even tugboats are
equipped and are saving (in hybrid mode) 40-60% of their diesel
consumption.

So when you mention battery technology being so far along, do you
consider the down side that it is a nasty business to be disposing of
the spent batteries? Typically the battery cars life cycle from
beginning to end today use more energy and pollute more during the
manufacturing, consumer operation, and disposal process than the Hummer.

The electrics look good if you only consider the consumer benefit. They
are not any better for the environment during manufacture and disposal.


Q. What happens when you battery runs down?
A. You have to recharge it.
Q. Where does the electricity come from to recharge it?
A. Mostly from power plants using coal, oil, and gas.

For most practical purposes, electrical energy is fossil fuel energy,
just one step removed.