Just Wondering wrote in news:4e48b888$0$27188$a8266bb1
@newsreader.readnews.com:

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.

Isn't this an assumption? An ever increasing amount of baseline large
scale electricity generation comes from renewables or nuclear. So, maybe
it is "only" 20% now, that doesn't mean it can't be 50% or more relatively
soon.


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

True, for now smile.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 8/15/2011 1:10 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
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.

Use by the consumer is the only actual point that building, using , and
disposal of an electric car makes sense on paper.
Cars that run on electricity are more efficient than those that run on
gasoline, approximately 4 times more efficient. Basically stated, it
costs approximately 1/4 the amount to produce the electricity needed to
accomplish what gasoline accomplishes for a vehicle

I would say that the biggest obstacle that electric cars have is that
you cannot refill them in 10 minutes so taking them on a trip past a
charge capacity is going to be difficult.

The next big obstacle is going to be when the "greenies" discover that
the cost and environmental impact to manufacture and dismantle those
electric vehicles is worse than for a conventional vehicle. Think
grocery store bag. Save the trees, choose plastic over paper! Save the
environment, bring and reuse your own cloth bags. Think don't drive tot
he grocery store with excess weight which will use more fuel, use the
grocery store bags.

On 8/15/2011 6:11 AM, Han wrote:
Just wrote in news:4e48b888$0$27188$a8266bb1
@newsreader.readnews.com:

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.

Isn't this an assumption? An ever increasing amount of baseline large
scale electricity generation comes from renewables or nuclear. So, maybe
it is "only" 20% now, that doesn't mean it can't be 50% or more relatively
soon.


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

True, for nowsmile.



Did you hear about all the rolling blackout warnings this summer?

In article ,
says...

On 8/15/2011 6:11 AM, Han wrote:
Just wrote in news:4e48b888$0$27188$a8266bb1
@newsreader.readnews.com:

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.

Isn't this an assumption? An ever increasing amount of baseline large
scale electricity generation comes from renewables or nuclear. So, maybe
it is "only" 20% now, that doesn't mean it can't be 50% or more relatively
soon.


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

True, for nowsmile.



Did you hear about all the rolling blackout warnings this summer?

In any case, all energy is fossil fuel energy. Even solar. The fossil
is the primordial hydrogen that the sun is burning at a horrendous rate
and in a very wasteful manner.

Richard wrote in
m:

Did you hear about all the rolling blackout warnings this summer?

I'm in the greater New York City area, not in Japan. While there were a
few outages here during the heatwaves, most were due to storms. No rolling
blackouts here.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"J. Clarke" wrote in
in.local:

In any case, all energy is fossil fuel energy. Even solar. The fossil
is the primordial hydrogen that the sun is burning at a horrendous rate
and in a very wasteful manner.

I'm sure the treaparty will fix that too ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 8/15/2011 8:32 AM, Han wrote:
"J. wrote in
in.local:

In any case, all energy is fossil fuel energy. Even solar. The fossil
is the primordial hydrogen that the sun is burning at a horrendous rate
and in a very wasteful manner.

I'm sure the treaparty will fix that too ...

LOL ... you liberal rascal you!

One unarguable fact you guys conveniently lose sight of with regard to
the the Tea Party:

The "Tea Party" are NOT the ones that got us into this mess.

That is not to say that, given the doubtful opportunity, they won't
follow suit.

Remember, and NEVER lose sight that, Dickens' "Little Dorritt", Chapter
10, is the ONLY unalterable rule of government!

Op. cit.




--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote in
:

On 8/15/2011 8:32 AM, Han wrote:
"J. wrote in
in.local:

In any case, all energy is fossil fuel energy. Even solar. The
fossil is the primordial hydrogen that the sun is burning at a
horrendous rate and in a very wasteful manner.

I'm sure the treaparty will fix that too ...

LOL ... you liberal rascal you!

One unarguable fact you guys conveniently lose sight of with regard to
the the Tea Party:

The "Tea Party" are NOT the ones that got us into this mess.

That is not to say that, given the doubtful opportunity, they won't
follow suit.

Remember, and NEVER lose sight that, Dickens' "Little Dorritt",
Chapter 10, is the ONLY unalterable rule of government!

Op. cit.



Noted with delight!!

Just to remind you, I'm fiscally conservative. As just restated in the
NY Times, Texas didn't suffer as much as CA & FL from the housing
collapse (in part) because of its rather stringent mortgage regulations.
Other than that they (of course) had little good to say about Parry ...


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:21:36 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 8/15/2011 8:32 AM, Han wrote:
"J. wrote in
in.local:

In any case, all energy is fossil fuel energy. Even solar. The fossil
is the primordial hydrogen that the sun is burning at a horrendous rate
and in a very wasteful manner.

I'm sure the treaparty will fix that too ...

LOL ... you liberal rascal you!

g Did he mean "tea" or "tree", as in his Tree Hugger party, I'm
wondering? Anything else is unthinkable. Heavens! :^)

I wish our Tea Party would lose the loudmouthed freaks at the top,
getting all the media attention, though.


One unarguable fact you guys conveniently lose sight of with regard to
the the Tea Party:

The "Tea Party" are NOT the ones that got us into this mess.

Verily!


That is not to say that, given the doubtful opportunity, they won't
follow suit.

An unfortunate possibility.


Remember, and NEVER lose sight that, Dickens' "Little Dorritt", Chapter
10, is the ONLY unalterable rule of government!

Op. cit.

Opus in printius:
http://www.readprint.com/chapter-280...harles-Dickens



P.S: Is the Department of Redundancy Department included in today's
Department of Circumlocution?

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

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

P.S: Is the Department of Redundancy Department included in today's
Department of Circumlocution?

They are separate entities, not at all duplicating each other.
... --- ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 8/15/2011 10:02 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:21:36 -0500, wrote:


Remember, and NEVER lose sight that, Dickens' "Little Dorritt", Chapter
10, is the ONLY unalterable rule of government!

Op. cit.

Opus in printius:
http://www.readprint.com/chapter-280...harles-Dickens



P.S: Is the Department of Redundancy Department included in today's
Department of Circumlocution?

That which we call a rose ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:51:29 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 8/15/2011 10:02 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:21:36 -0500, wrote:


Remember, and NEVER lose sight that, Dickens' "Little Dorritt", Chapter
10, is the ONLY unalterable rule of government!

Op. cit.

Opus in printius:
http://www.readprint.com/chapter-280...harles-Dickens



P.S: Is the Department of Redundancy Department included in today's
Department of Circumlocution?

That which we call a rose ...

Wilt pricketh thou just the same?

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

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:15:05 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 8/15/2011 6:11 AM, Han wrote:
Just wrote in news:4e48b888$0$27188$a8266bb1
@newsreader.readnews.com:

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.

Isn't this an assumption? An ever increasing amount of baseline large
scale electricity generation comes from renewables or nuclear. So, maybe
it is "only" 20% now, that doesn't mean it can't be 50% or more relatively
soon.


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

True, for nowsmile.



Did you hear about all the rolling blackout warnings this summer?

In any case, all energy is fossil fuel energy. Even solar. The fossil
is the primordial hydrogen that the sun is burning at a horrendous rate
and in a very wasteful manner.

Nuclear is fossil in origin?

On 15 Aug 2011 14:58:47 GMT, Han wrote:

Swingman wrote in
m:

On 8/15/2011 8:32 AM, Han wrote:
"J. wrote in
in.local:

In any case, all energy is fossil fuel energy. Even solar. The
fossil is the primordial hydrogen that the sun is burning at a
horrendous rate and in a very wasteful manner.

I'm sure the treaparty will fix that too ...

LOL ... you liberal rascal you!

One unarguable fact you guys conveniently lose sight of with regard to
the the Tea Party:

The "Tea Party" are NOT the ones that got us into this mess.

That is not to say that, given the doubtful opportunity, they won't
follow suit.

Remember, and NEVER lose sight that, Dickens' "Little Dorritt",
Chapter 10, is the ONLY unalterable rule of government!

Op. cit.



Noted with delight!!

Just to remind you, I'm fiscally conservative. As just restated in the
NY Times, Texas didn't suffer as much as CA & FL from the housing
collapse (in part) because of its rather stringent mortgage regulations.
Other than that they (of course) had little good to say about Parry ...

You expect the NYT to say *anything* good about Perry?

" wrote in
:

On 15 Aug 2011 14:58:47 GMT, Han wrote:

SNIP

Just to remind you, I'm fiscally conservative. As just restated in the
NY Times, Texas didn't suffer as much as CA & FL from the housing
collapse (in part) because of its rather stringent mortgage regulations.
Other than that they (of course) had little good to say about Parry ...

You expect the NYT to say *anything* good about Perry?

I said: "Other than that they (of course) had little good to say about
Parry"
Why did you think I added "of course"?

But I do agree with the NY Times this time grin.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 17 Aug 2011 01:11:50 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 15 Aug 2011 14:58:47 GMT, Han wrote:

SNIP

Just to remind you, I'm fiscally conservative. As just restated in the
NY Times, Texas didn't suffer as much as CA & FL from the housing
collapse (in part) because of its rather stringent mortgage regulations.
Other than that they (of course) had little good to say about Parry ...

You expect the NYT to say *anything* good about Perry?

I said: "Other than that they (of course) had little good to say about
Parry"
Why did you think I added "of course"?

It's still a weak statement (of the obvious).

But I do agree with the NY Times this time grin.

*SHOCKING*!

" wrote in
news
You expect the NYT to say *anything* good about Perry?

I said: "Other than that they (of course) had little good to say about
Parry"
Why did you think I added "of course"?

It's still a weak statement (of the obvious).

But I do agree with the NY Times this time grin.

*SHOCKING*!

If the GOP thinks that they can win with idiots like Perry, they're only
making it easy for Obama.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 8/17/2011 6:51 AM, Han wrote:
z wrote in
news
You expect the NYT to say *anything* good about Perry?

I said: "Other than that they (of course) had little good to say about
Parry"
Why did you think I added "of course"?

It's still a weak statement (of the obvious).

But I do agree with the NY Times this timegrin.

*SHOCKING*!

If the GOP thinks that they can win with idiots like Perry, they're only
making it easy for Obama.

Heh, you just go on thinking that. You might want to Google around on the
basic topic of "don't underestimate Rick Perry". One article in particular
offers a little food for thought and has gotten a lot of attention:

http://www.texasmonthly.com/2011-08-01/btl.php

Perry didn't jump into this race to lose it. I'm not going to stand here and
predict that he'll win, but if you think it will be "easy for Obama" you're
fooling yourself. :-)

--
"Our beer goes through thousands of quality Czechs every day."
(From a Shiner Bock billboard I saw in Austin some years ago)
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

Steve Turner wrote in
:

Perry didn't jump into this race to lose it. I'm not going to stand
here and predict that he'll win, but if you think it will be "easy for
Obama" you're fooling yourself. :-)

There are many who seriously think they could be president. Why not?
You've got to have ego. But, seriously, any good advisor who doesn't have
his head where the sun doesn't shine should (hehe) know that positions as
Perry has taken will not get you elected. Sure there is a hard-core tea
party bunch, but that is loud, not numerous.

As for Obama, if the GOP followers keep chasing their candidates rightward,
they won't have a chance.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Aug 17, 10:35*am, Han wrote:
Steve Turner wrote :

Perry didn't jump into this race to lose it. *I'm not going to stand
here and predict that he'll win, but if you think it will be "easy for
Obama" you're fooling yourself. *:-)

There are many who seriously think they could be president. *Why not? *
You've got to have ego. *But, seriously, any good advisor who doesn't have
his head where the sun doesn't shine should (hehe) know that positions as
Perry has taken will not get you elected. *Sure there is a hard-core tea
party bunch, but that is loud, not numerous.

As for Obama, if the GOP followers keep chasing their candidates rightward,
they won't have a chance.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

The TeaParty is likely to 'Naderize' the outcome; split the right.

Robatoy wrote in news:e8826576-c23b-4646-bfce-
:

The TeaParty is likely to 'Naderize' the outcome; split the right.

I'm hoping they indeed will BIG GRIN

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Han" wrote:

If the GOP thinks that they can win with idiots like Perry, they're
only
making it easy for Obama.
-------------------------------
If you want an argument, change the subject.

Lew

After a tour of the damaged reactor site, it's been announced by the
Japanese it may take at least 30 years to clean up the mess.

I'd call that a "Reactor problem".

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
b.com...

After a tour of the damaged reactor site, it's been announced by the
Japanese it may take at least 30 years to clean up the mess.

I'd call that a "Reactor problem".

Lew

==============

Let's not have a meltdown over it!

--

Eric

On 11/22/2011 5:17 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
After a tour of the damaged reactor site, it's been announced by the
Japanese it may take at least 30 years to clean up the mess.

I'd call that a "Reactor problem".

Lew





They're being optimistic. Hanford Nuclear Reservation is still dirty
after almost 70 years. This is one reason why nukes are generally not a
good option for power generation.

scritch

In article m,
Lew Hodgett wrote:
After a tour of the damaged reactor site, it's been announced by the
Japanese it may take at least 30 years to clean up the mess.

I'd call that a "Reactor problem".


30 years is not too bad. There are coal strip mines that have never
been cleaned up after 60 and 70 years.



--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation
with the average voter. (Winston Churchill)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

"Larry W" wrote:

30 years is not too bad. There are coal strip mines that have never
been cleaned up after 60 and 70 years.

-----------------------------
You want an argument change the subject.

About the ugliest thing I've ever seen were unreclaimed strip mines in
SE Ohio.

At one time it was productive farm land.

And now they want to blow the top off Blair mountain in WVA to get at
a seam of coal.

It's insane.

Lew

In article om,
Lew Hodgett wrote:

"Larry W" wrote:

30 years is not too bad. There are coal strip mines that have never
been cleaned up after 60 and 70 years.

-----------------------------
You want an argument change the subject.

About the ugliest thing I've ever seen were unreclaimed strip mines in
SE Ohio.

At one time it was productive farm land.

And now they want to blow the top off Blair mountain in WVA to get at
a seam of coal.

It's insane.

Lew


We certainly agree on that! Mountain top removal is an abomination.




--
Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler. (Albert Einstein)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

On 11/24/2011 8:16 PM, Larry W wrote:
In raweb.com,
Lew wrote:

"Larry W" wrote:

30 years is not too bad. There are coal strip mines that have never
been cleaned up after 60 and 70 years.

-----------------------------
You want an argument change the subject.

About the ugliest thing I've ever seen were unreclaimed strip mines in
SE Ohio.

At one time it was productive farm land.

And now they want to blow the top off Blair mountain in WVA to get at
a seam of coal.

It's insane.

Lew


We certainly agree on that! Mountain top removal is an abomination.






Eh. So's Fracking, but I don't expect them to stop.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

After a tour of the damaged reactor site, it's been announced by the
Japanese it may take at least 30 years to clean up the mess.

I'd call that a "Reactor problem".
----------------------------------------

Looks like "Reactor problem" was a bit of an understatement.

Now six months later, the Japanese have pulled the plug on nuclear
power in Japan.

Lew
..

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

After a tour of the damaged reactor site, it's been announced by the
Japanese it may take at least 30 years to clean up the mess.

I'd call that a "Reactor problem".
----------------------------------------

Looks like "Reactor problem" was a bit of an understatement.

Now six months later, the Japanese have pulled the plug on nuclear
power in Japan.

Lew
.

What fools! Don't they know it's safe, clean and cheap?

--

-Mike-

Wow, Mike... don't you think they know that it's not.

So if its cheap, why are they pulling the plug?
Because one accident like this costs way more than the savings. And
displaces thousands if not millions.

Clean... those rods will need to be kept clear of anyone for 40 thousand
years. So you realize that civilzation has not been around that long.
What language will they be speaking then. Will the warning to the
entrance be understood...



On 5/6/2012 1:16 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

After a tour of the damaged reactor site, it's been announced by the
Japanese it may take at least 30 years to clean up the mess.

I'd call that a "Reactor problem".
----------------------------------------

Looks like "Reactor problem" was a bit of an understatement.

Now six months later, the Japanese have pulled the plug on nuclear
power in Japan.

Lew
.

What fools! Don't they know it's safe, clean and cheap?

tiredofspam wrote:
Wow, Mike... don't you think they know that it's not.

So if its cheap, why are they pulling the plug?
Because one accident like this costs way more than the savings. And
displaces thousands if not millions.

Clean... those rods will need to be kept clear of anyone for 40
thousand years. So you realize that civilzation has not been around
that long. What language will they be speaking then. Will the warning
to the entrance be understood...


Sorry - I left by sarcasm widget at home when I posted my reply.

--

-Mike-

Sorry - I left by sarcasm widget at home when I posted my reply.
Jeez.... I got it. Maybe, from now on, we all should precede all
coments with a tag, eg.:

sarcasm: s
disdain: d
stupidity: wtf?
disbelief: wtff?
disagree: gfy
anger: ihy
think you're stupid: itys

game on

Yea, I couldn't remember your stance.
I know I went head to head before with some guys here saying it was in
fact clean,safe and cheap.



On 5/6/2012 3:39 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
tiredofspam wrote:
Wow, Mike... don't you think they know that it's not.

So if its cheap, why are they pulling the plug?
Because one accident like this costs way more than the savings. And
displaces thousands if not millions.

Clean... those rods will need to be kept clear of anyone for 40
thousand years. So you realize that civilzation has not been around
that long. What language will they be speaking then. Will the warning
to the entrance be understood...


Sorry - I left by sarcasm widget at home when I posted my reply.

On Sun, 6 May 2012 13:16:03 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

After a tour of the damaged reactor site, it's been announced by the
Japanese it may take at least 30 years to clean up the mess.

I'd call that a "Reactor problem".
----------------------------------------

Looks like "Reactor problem" was a bit of an understatement.

Now six months later, the Japanese have pulled the plug on nuclear
power in Japan.

Lew
.

What fools! Don't they know it's safe, clean and cheap?

Before the earthquake/tsunami double-whammy, they _were_!
I think they're fools to get away from it.

--
With every experience, you alone are painting your
own canvas, thought by thought, choice by choice.
-- Oprah Winfrey

In article om,
Lew Hodgett wrote:

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

After a tour of the damaged reactor site, it's been announced by the
Japanese it may take at least 30 years to clean up the mess.

I'd call that a "Reactor problem".
----------------------------------------

Looks like "Reactor problem" was a bit of an understatement.

Now six months later, the Japanese have pulled the plug on nuclear
power in Japan.


Here's a coal mining problem that has existed since 1962 and will probably
NEVER be cleaned up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania

Some estimates say the underground fire will continue to burn for as much as
100 or even 200 or more years. Nuclear power looks like a pretty clean
alternative from here.



--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org

"Larry W" wrote:


Here's a coal mining problem that has existed since 1962 and will
probably
NEVER be cleaned up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania

Some estimates say the underground fire will continue to burn for as
much as
100 or even 200 or more years. Nuclear power looks like a pretty
clean
alternative from here.
--------------------------------
Guess there is some sort of twisted logic there, but damned if I see
it.

Replacing one poisonious fuel source with another even more dangerous
one doesn't get the job done.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:4fa859d4$0$1641
:


"Larry W" wrote:


Here's a coal mining problem that has existed since 1962 and will
probably
NEVER be cleaned up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania

Some estimates say the underground fire will continue to burn for as
much as
100 or even 200 or more years. Nuclear power looks like a pretty
clean
alternative from here.
--------------------------------
Guess there is some sort of twisted logic there, but damned if I see
it.

Replacing one poisonious fuel source with another even more dangerous
one doesn't get the job done.

Lew

Dangerous is having something that has design problems that have no
reliable workaround, or a process that the equipments' operators cannot
deal with. That was true in Centralia, as well as in Fukushima. IMNSHO,
nuclear energy is relatively cheap, clean as well as safe if operated
responsibly. Unfortunately, the clean and safe aspects are somewhat
inadequately addressed ...


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

tiredofspam wrote:
Wow, Mike... don't you think they know that it's not.

So if its cheap, why are they pulling the plug?
Because one accident like this costs way more than the savings. And
displaces thousands if not millions.

Does it really cost more than all the savings for 50 years between
accidents?

And that interval will get longer. Keeping it away from shore in a country
that has tsunamis isn't that hard.


Clean... those rods will need to be kept clear of anyone for 40
thousand years. So you realize that civilzation has not been around
that long. What language will they be speaking then. Will the warning
to the entrance be understood...

It won't take us 100 years to figure out how to get the remaining energy out
of them, if we try to do it at all.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.