No idea, but note the problem wasn't the impact. If anything was remiss
in the design it was the size and duration of fire which isn't in the
scenario under discussion here anyway.
And with that this has become so far off track as to be worth marking to
ignore any remainder of the thread....
What you know! If a jar of pickles can spontaneously explode and destroy
twelve city blocks with massive fatalities and render the whole area a toxic
pit, then spent fuel rods are similarly vulnerable.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:09:05 -0700 (PDT), email@example.com wrote:
The problem is a power plant in Iowa is not much help for the power
hungry area of East Massachusetts. You are also not likely to ever get
any other kind of power plant there either without a fight from
There are legitimate concerns with putting up windmills just
anywhere. While I'm no fan of the Kennedys and you certainly can
call them hypocrits because they run around advocating green
solutions, I agree that they have a legitimate concern about putting
up offshore windmills that destroy a pristine view. Here in NJ
there was a plan to put 350ft high windmills offshore within sight of
land. To me, that is unacceptable. The last thing we need to do is
turn a beautiful ocean view into an industrial one. We spend a huge
amount of money here buying up open land and forest to keep it natural
and from being developed. To then turn around and destroy one of the
most priceless views makes no sense.
If they can be located beyond sight, then I have no problem with
that. But even that gets blocked by environmentalists, who then moan
about bird strikes, harm to fish, etc. I'd also seriously question
the economics of offshore windmills as compared to other
Heaven forbid someone has to look at a windmill. It's much more pleasant to
look at smoke stacks, light poles and exhaust pipes. Houston Texas now gets
25% of it's electricity from windpower. Texas gets 10% of it's electricity
from windpower. I doubt if .0005% of the people in Texas have seen a
We are also starting to get a lot of our water from the gulf of Mexico
through desalination processes. Nobody seems to complain about that huge
desalination plant on the coast. Phil Gramm was right, "we';ve become a
nation of whiners". Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Either welcome
progress or shut up and accept your lot in life.
Not to mention the 2-legged whales in droves... :( :)
Or, what's so different to watching a multi-thousand ton ship that is
supposedly "scenic" as compared to a windmill that takes up far less
area--just that it stays still??? It seems somehow an incongruous
argument to me...
Ships come and go (most importantly here "go") while a windmill is
forever. I would bet that is the argument. Also depends on the ship. I
know a couple of people who got their condos near the cruise port
because they got a kick out of watching them come and go. Sorta like
people used to do with trains.
The point is to get any reasonable amount of power from windmills you
need not, one "plant", not one ship, but thousands of them. And
IMO, putting these 375 foot tall structures offshore and ruining the
view when they are within sight of land is a major issue and would be
a big mistake.
I already stated that here we have one nuke within 20 miles of my
house. We have 3 more nukes in NJ. I'd be happy if they built
more. I'd be happy if they opened up offshore to drilling, out of
sight of land. I'd be OK with windmills located offshore out of sight
from the beach. We have fall out in pollution from the coal fired
plants to our west. We have major oil refineries supplying many
other states with gasoline and diesel. Must we have to agree that
windmills off the beach are a great idea too, just to make you
I can't tell _what_ you think, specifically on that particular subject
-- you say one thing then the other attitude creeps back in it appears
in a followup...
In reality, I wasn't speaking so much directly at you as trying to
emphasize the point that there are views of open expanse out here in
what most consider the nearly deserted middle and that it seems ok to
most in populated areas (including Topeka and Kansas City) that those
areas get visually polluted while somehow the seacoast or mountain
retreat or whatever of the complainers are somehow sacrosanct.
Meanwhile, of course, those same people are often among the most
profligate users of the very power they want delivered to them w/o their
having any burden.
How's this for a plan: A federal regulation that says 90% of the power
consumed within a state must be generated within the state (or within 24
miles of the state's coastline). If, for whatever reason (worry about
pollution, esthetics, hazard to navigation, etc.) a state is unable to be
self-sufficient, it can cut back its usage.
In the alternative, a federal tax on all electric power that crosses a state
line, say, three-cents per kwh.
I'm in a state that produces about 105% of it's domestic needs (we sell a
little bit to Mexico and Oklahoma). In fact, the city in which I live (8
million people in the metropolitan area) has no zoning. If someone wanted to
build a power plant next door to me, well, that's okay.
As you might guess, I don't have much sympathy for those who screech NIMBY.
So let's see, we have a state with huge amounts of hydropower and
little population so we discourage them from selling their excess
power to the adjacent states with large populations and little
hydropower, instead encouraging those states to build their own,
dirtier power plants. Now, remind me, what was the benefit of your
plan supposed to be?
The trouble with that is it seems to filet a fairly large number of
fish when the schools wander into the generator area. At least that was
the argument I saw against it last year.
If global warming doesn't do it, maybe KS can use tidal
forces after the West Coast falls off the continent following The Big
Kurt (Better get ready to tie-up de boat in Idaho) Ullman
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.