Lets construct some nuc power plants.

.. a cure for Sharia law and all that lashing crap.
We can build a hundred nuc power plants for the cost of funding the war in iraq for a year , and be entirely free of imported oil...reviving our economy and starving these sharia law cretins over there who lash women to death. for getting gang raped.
Cost of a nuc plant on a per plant basis today 5 to 6 billion dollars, takes 5 to 7 years. In mass production, identical, components... 100 plants can be built at one time for considerably less.. maybe less than 3 billion or so per plant.
further costs reductions possible by building fewer but larger ones...viable in some locations such as serving big cities.
( safety/waste disposal... summary, the new ones for the last 20 years in france (US design) no accidents ..ever. for the most part intrinsically safe, compared to coal wich dumps high level radioactives into the air, no risk at all. disposal of spend fuel rods? These are largely reprocessed, net waste is at trace levels.. those decay to U238 in 200 years...not a long term issue either.)
Its the coal and oil lobbies who stopped Nuc power in the US (the Gore family has extensive coal interests... producing more C02 than all the cars and trucks in the world combined by a factor of 5 to one or better).
Nuclear power plants eliminate massive C02 producing coal plants used to power our cities.. and can use the power to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water (comon). the hydrogen used to power cars and trucks.. the oxygen can be released into LA to keep the illegals from suffocating.
an expensive hydrogen infrastructure required though, cost about the same as running the war in iraq for 20 minutes.
Phil scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
But our Israel controlled goverment** wants what is best for Israel, NOT what is best for "We the people" of the U.S. They want us in Iraq and Iran. So war it will be!
And the big oil companies (which also donate heavily to our elected officials) would probably prefer that we not reduce our dependence on oil.
30 billion in U.S. aid to Israel... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293423,00.html
**AIPAC... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC
"phil scott" wrote in message

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

yes indeedie, those are primary drivers apparently...those were defused in much of the rest of the world, france and japan for instance...but not in the good old USA.... real change apparently happens only after defeat of one sort or the other.... then err blowback occurs. .. we beeen seein' a liddo bit of dat.. ah...lately.
Phil Scott
Phil scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
phil scott wrote:

Not really a solution to either problem although for base-loaded electric generation it is a very attractive alternative. Only a very small fraction of current generation is oil-fired and certainly whether or not we use oil isn't going to make any difference whatsoever on a culture's religious precepts.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

entirely correct.... there are spin off factors however...for instance the use of oil to fuel cars and trucks can be **displaced by nuclear, . .as it is used to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen...
then the hydrogen used to fuel cars etc.
this leaves us with oil needed for jet fuel, plastics and fertilizers...our currently produced 60% handles that easily.... zero imports required.
Phil Scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And then what, Only Nuke powerplant corps will make money while now oil companies make money, weapon and military companies make money, iraq contractors which is everything from transportation of troops, food, fuel to many vendors and other manufacturers make money. Besies we still don't have a 'green way' to dispose of nuclear waste.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
you are right ( but it is probably to late) at the same time we should mandate no private use of autos every other day
take care peter

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

What we should mandate is no more than one child per family. The problme is not cars, not oil, but OVER POPULATION. You can't apply band-aid fixes and not fix the root problem.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Population is on the decline in most countries.
Besides, I doubt a brick-brain such as you really understands the root of the problem, except the rhetoric your handlers shoved up your ass.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:42:27 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"

Not likely. There are few, if any, countries that are at their optimum population.

Not even likely... In fact, I can't quite figure out what you are saying! Exactly what is the root of your problem?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:42:27 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"

Like:
Historical U.S. Population Growth by year 1900-1998
Date Population Change Percent Change July 1, 1998     270,298,524     2,554,929     0.95 July 1, 1997     267,743,595     2,553,801     0.96 July 1, 1996     265,189,794     2,424,846     0.92 July 1, 1995     262,764,948     2,475,711     0.95 July 1, 1994     260,289,237     2,543,134     0.98 July 1, 1993     257,746,103     2,751,586     1.07 July 1, 1992     254,994,517     2,867,115     1.13 July 1, 1991     252,127,402     2,688,690     1.07 July 1, 1990     249,438,712     2,619,482     1.06
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, Nos. 311, 917, 1095 released on June 4, 1999.
Now that's a decline!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Can we agree as a world we consume more energy to do the things we do than we need to. There have been many studies showing using our energy more efficiently is more cost effective than consuming more.
I'm in the residential efficiency industry and for a small investment at the time of construction we can reduce the heating and cooling 80% or more. And in existing construction we can get 40-60% reduction.
The interesting thing is the house becomes healthier and more comfortable with lower bills. Sounds like a solution to me.
This is only in the residential sector; let's apply this to commercial, industry and transportation. WOW before we know it we can start decommissioning power plants, capping oil wells and reducing the mining of uranium.
Just a thought; what could one accomplish in energy efficiency by spending a Trillion dollars on doing cost effective energy management?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.