we have on us soil a couple thousand year supply of coal.........
isnt that enough for you?
arent you the one who claimed chernobyl only killed one city, yet this
proves the dead area is very large....
plus the river sends contaminated water down river indefinetely.
no one says how long term storage will be paid for a yucca mountain is
Well, ignoring CO2 and other emissions now, are you?
I'm fine w/ fossil-fired units as long as they're not wasting oil and
natural gas as we currently are (both of which are far too valuable to
be frittered away on central-station generation).
But, if the greenhouse gas argument has any legs at all, there's only
one real alternative, and that is nuclear. (I know, there's
solar/wind/geothermal/tidal/..., but none of those has the facility to
replace large central-station generation 24/7 at anyways near the
If you think the Chernobyl pictures are a problem, look at the air
pollution problems China and India are making from their fossil-fired
generation and consider that impact as they continue to build at the
rate they are. And, while considering, consider that whatever we do in
the US isn't going to make any difference whatsoever in their
governments' policies of what is in their best short term interests.
So, if you want to make any positive impact whatsoever, you had best get
on the nuclear bandwagon--it's the only real alternative. What may
happen in another 20-50 years for C sequestration and all is hard to
guess, but my personal opinion is it is at least that long before
there's any hope of any of the currently-proposed technologies being
large-scale viable at anything close to competitive costs. Meanwhile,
we already know how to build and operate safe, cost-competitive nuclear
power plants -- all we need is to do it.
IF YOU"RE GOING TO KEEP CLAIMING THIS AT LEAST GO BACK AND FIND WHERE IT
WAS AND DO THE COMPLAINING TO THE PERPETRATOR.
The costs are paid by the fund the nuclear utilities contribute to --
this has been pointed out to you previously.
Yucca Mountain is no guarantee for what? It is what it is -- a
temporary storage facility until the US finally gets off its duff and
begins to reprocess fuel and make use of the vast resource we're now
just sitting on.
This again is not a technical challenge, it's a political problem
created by folks like you who have no solutions, only complaints, most
of them as ludicrous as the arguments you've tried to make here.
ahh sadly one mistake creates another chernobyl like event.
while the reactor cores and compartively well protected in the
containment building, the large concrete domeed building ........
the spent fuel rods are stored in roughly insecure normal building. if
a terrorist sent a small plane loaded with explosives into one of
these facilities, cooling water can be interrupted.
you have a major disaster.
I support more nuke plants once the nuclear waste issue is addressed.
currently they are thinking of burying it in yucca mountain nevada
One of the funnest things in Usenet. :)
About the freezer: the job is going on hold until I can do without the
services of the freezer for a while. I had a chance to score a USDA Choice
whole been sirlion for $1.99 a pound, nine pounds of beef, couldn't pass it
Thanks for all advice.
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Oh fer gosh sakes, this thing is an artifact. I'm not going to tell
people to scrap
their classic pink '58 Cadillac, or to avoid restoring a steam
it's got 3% thermal efficiency. If someone wants to pay a few extra
keep this going as a working museum piece, that's okay with me, and I
it ought to be okay with anybody.
Ice cream every meal is not a good practice, but ice cream never?
Efficient, inefficient, this machine is an antique. Probably more
than 99% of
its brothers have gone for scrap. If those few that remain in good
kept running, they're not going to materially effect power
more than those '58 Caddies are raising oil prices. Do people have
concept of just how *many* fridges are in use?
A purely utilitarian philosophy is a purely dismal one.
well after some time it wouldnt be retrievable. and nevada is fighting
the plan, based at least partially on the risk of a earthquake opening
the mountain at some point in a thousand years.
just how does one prevent a person in the future from accidently
breeching the storage area? our country is just over 200 years old.
now a thousands or more. how does one guarantee a future resident
doesnt drill a well, not knowing the hazard
The logical solution is to recycle as does the rest of the world. The
only reason we're not is because during the Carter administration the
NRC was commanded to not consider the licensing application for the
GE-proposed recycling facility, effectively creating the problem of the
open-end fuel cycle we're still having to deal with.
The only reason for that was Carter's inability to separate commercial
nuclear fuel and reprocessing/recycling from weapons proliferation.
As in the comparison you keep trying to make between Chernobyl and other
LWR reactor designs, the only real similarity is that they both use some
of the same words.
On Feb 27, 8:26�am, email@example.com wrote:
all public buildings nationwide should be required to have a minimal
back up power capability.
to run emergency lights, get elevators to ground level, and stuff like
people stuck in elevators is really dumb in this day and age
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:52:33 -0800 (PST), " firstname.lastname@example.org"
Why would the firemen go down the shaft. You just open the door and
climb out. The only dangerous part is if the power comes back on while
you are in the door.
Most elevator doors can be pried open from inside then you can trip
the latch for the hallway door.
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.