O/T: "Drill Baby Drill"

Page 14 of 15  
On 5/4/2010 1:32 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Just what, exactly, do you think could happen a Yucca that would be so incredibly dangerous.

So ... anything with significant risk ought never to be done? This precludes most human progression.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 4 May 2010 11:32:47 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"

Been watching "The China Syndrome" again, Lew? <tsk tsk tsk> Um, you DO know that the meltdown it showed could not physically happen in the real world, right? So far, nuclear has -far- fewer and far less disastrous fuckups than the automotive, aeromotive, and locomotive industries. Thousands of man-years of nuke and no massive loss of life yet. (Chernobyl's 60 don't count as "massive". 9/11 alone killed far more.)

Lew, only nuke will save us from oil. Wind can help a wee bit. Solar can help a wee bit. Geothermal can help us a wee bit, but we need nuclear power for weaning from oil, PERIOD.
Suck it up, big guy. It's going to happen.
-- All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. --Thomas Paine
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Latest studies indicate the real impact was a million deaths. Obviously, YMMV.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/5/2010 10:56 PM, Steve wrote:

If you cook the numbers to suit your prejudices.
Your "latest studies" are a book that even the publisher has repudiated.
Even Greenpeace is only claiming 100,000, and that's a guess as to the number of "fatal cancers" that will result.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Chernobyl happened twenty-four years ago. There is no denying that over a million people in the Ukraine have died since then.
Likewise, everybody who ate pickles before 1920 is today either dead or has white hair and no teeth.
Coincidence? I think not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/6/2010 7:42 AM, HeyBub wrote:

Also, the sun sets because the street lights come on.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 05 May 2010 23:19:52 -0400, "J. Clarke"

"Latest studies" by whom, Algore? "Hockey Stick"
In any case, even with the worst case of arrogance and illogic that the Russkies had in building the Chernobyl style nuke plant and their horribly negligent operation of it, NOT ONE of the horrible fears the anti-nuke activists could imagine ever came true in the slightest. It was extremely mild in comparison, and that was the worst nuke "accident" in the world to date.

The problem is that the Chernobyl area has fewer incidences of cancer than the general Russian public. Of course, they evacuated the area <bseg>, but they're taking that into account, following the exposed folks to their new homes.
Greenpeace is going after all nuclear power because of the stupidity of people who continue to _choose_to_live_ in contaminated areas? Brilliant!
Yes, I can understand that there may be more deaths in the cleanup personnel for the area, too, but that isn't truly nuclear accident related. It's politburo arrogance again, knowingly sacrificing more people after their little "oopsie" of allowing a poorly designed nuke plant be poorly managed.
IOW, don't count _preventable_ deaths.
-- All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. --Thomas Paine
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/5/2010 9:56 PM, Steve wrote:

Of interest:
http://www.kiddofspeed.com /
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The waste issues are relative. One pound of nasty stuff vs 100,000 pounds of not quite as nasty stuff. The shit that coal plants toss in the air is just amazing. Not just fly-ash and sulpher compounds, but many metals, some quite nasty. And of course the oxides of carbon, nitrogen, vanadium, etc. I would rather deal with one rattle snake than a million locusts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robatoy" wrote:
The waste issues are relative. One pound of nasty stuff vs 100,000 pounds of not quite as nasty stuff. The shit that coal plants toss in the air is just amazing. Not just fly-ash and sulpher compounds, but many metals, some quite nasty. And of course the oxides of carbon, nitrogen, vanadium, etc. I would rather deal with one rattle snake than a million locusts. ----------------------------------------------- Whether people want to willingly get on board or be pulled by the scruff of the neck, the renewable energy train is getting ready to leave the station.
The end of the use of fossil fuels will happen during this century, the question will be who is going to lead the transition.
Last week a Chinese vehicle manufacturer opened their USA headquarters here in Los Angeles.
Their product line includes electric vehicles, batteries and solar panels.
Warren Buffet has invested $300K in this company which didn't even exist 15 years ago.
Is this 40 years ago being repeated again only by the Chinese rather than the Japanese?
I hope not but the train won't wait.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/4/2010 1:48 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Go look at the viability of your beloved "renewable energy" sources *without* massive government subsidies. Then go look at the *net* energy required to produce the final output. You will be amazed to discover that, while there are particular places where things like solar make sense, on the whole, the whole "renewable energy" thing has been vastly oversold to a science-ignorant public.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Yup. There's only so much energy that falls on the surface of the earth.
I once computed that it would take a solar collector the size of the Los Angeles basin (1200 sq miles) to provide power just to California. The down side, apart from the cost to build and mainatain something that massive would be that all the Angelenos would live in the dark.
Which, when you think on it, may not be so bad.
The alternative is to move the earth's orbit closer to the sun.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We're gonna need a bigger boat!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/4/2010 2:48 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

There is no renewable energy.

So? Many companies make electric vehicles, batteries, and solar panels. If the Chinese can make an electric vehicle that passes US safety regulations and is acceptable for highway use cheaper than the Japanese can, more power to them.

300K is peanuts for an automotive startup.

Uh, the BYD is nothing special. If they were selling an electric that can be charged in under 5 minutes, runs 200+ miles on a charge, and costs about the same as a Honda Civic, then I'd be impressed, but theirs is a strictly "me-too" effort whose only likely real advantage is the use of super cheap Chinese labor to get the price down.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/04/2010 02:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

This is very difficult technically--it would require huge current flows or very high voltages.
A quick-change battery "sled" would make more sense, but then it becomes tricky unless all the various manufacturers standardize on a small number of designs to allow service stations to stock them all.
Chris
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/4/2010 5:15 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:

Yes, it's difficult technically. If the Chinese are so smart though they should be able to figure out a way to do it. If they can't, then they aren't any smarter than anybody else.

Yep.
The only system that is proven to work and give generally satisfactory performance is fuel cells.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

-------------------------------------------- If the country is willing to make the same commitment to solving the alternate energy problems it made to putting a man on the moon in the 60's, 10 years will find remarkable progress towards resolving the issues, IMHO.
All that is necessary is the commitment.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/4/2010 8:40 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

We knew how to put a man on the moon. No fundamental breakthroughs needed. Turn the crank engineering.
We don't know how to make a battery several orders of magnitude better than anything that is currently in existence. That needs a fundamental breakthrough in battery chemistry, which can't be achieved by throwing money at the problem.
We do know how to make fuel cells but throwing money at the problem won't make hydrogen cheap.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

--------------------------------------------- The voice of the eternal optimist.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/4/2010 11:41 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Why not? Are you one of those for whom a system which at no cost turns the nuclear waste into a cure for all known diseases would be insufficient?
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.