To emphasis what I said let me say: "I sorry that there are that many people in California who think that way". Maybe the state would not be near bankrupt if the people were more reasonable.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
RE: O/T: San Onofre
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
And the answer to why the people in California are in the situation that hey are in. I have to think that it is difficult to see the Forrest for the trees considering all hurdles you seem to constantly have to jump.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
Installation of scrubbing units, improvements in coal burning techniques and using fly ash waste as a concrete reinforcment has cleaned up the coal fed power plants in the area.
Nuclear waste would be hanging around for hundreds of years, waiting for a mistake to happen
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
And if Lew agrees with them, why does he post his rant weekly about gas prices? Can't have it both ways, Lew.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
It must not be as rosy in California as the residents would want you to believe. They do complain a lot and have restrictions upon restrictions.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
I think your second sentence explains your first one quite well :-).
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
California is a beautiful state , but the folks in the capitol have ruined it. Companies are leaving in droves because of it, it's a shame they can't use a little common sense, but that seems to be a trait that politicans don't possess
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
------------------------------------------------ You're working with stale data.
CA is back in the black.
Lew
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
----------------------------------------------- As posted elsewhere, you're working with stale data.
CA is back in the black.
Lew
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
-------------------------------------------- The post simply points out the obvious, there is a better ways to get energy than by burning hydrocarbon based fuels.
Lew
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
That statement could just as easily be applied to other places. The fist one that comes to my mind is the province of Quebec.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
Any government/politician that does any more than to maintain the infrastructure and protect its borders is IN OVER IT'S HEAD.
Any privileges beyond that is a license to steal, and we all see the proof. When politicians have special privileges that are not equal to the people of those they govern there is an attraction of the dishonest.
If politicians had any talent other than lying and the gift of gab they would not be in government.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
I have often wondered why the nuclear waste is not shot off into outer space.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 19:07:30 -0500, Leon
My guess would be cost. Much, Much cheaper to just stick it in a hole in the ground.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
LOL Really, My sister and her son have both been involved in their own small businesses. My sister gets by but her son has never been successful. Both have bragged about their yearly sales, which BTW is about equal to an average gross salary. What they don't realize I am wondering is how much their cost of materials and cost of doing business is coming out of those sales. If you have $60,000 in sales and your cost is $45,000 can you live on $15,000 per year?
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
At the moment it is, but not when it has to be dealt with later.
And for that matter, the cost would be countless times more reasonable that the cost of sending astronauts up there. Shoot the waste out there and the problem of down the rode costs is solved. We are not really getting a worth while return on the investment of sending astronauts up there.
I can assure you a politician is getting paid for letting his state accept/be paid for housing the materials. Shoot the waste into outer space and the politician gets nothing.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 19:24:47 -0500, Leon
We're not prepared to make the effort to use a cleaner source of energy and we're not prepared to keep its waste product on our planet so the solution is to put it off planet and potentially contaminate somewhere out of this world?
I don't know. I have a moral problem with that. Already, our nearby space is turning into a junk field. What if all that junk and possible nuclear waste ever comes back to home? Then we might have a REAL problem.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
One doesn't have to 'shoot' it into our star - but if we were allowed to build a 'breeder' plant the waste would be transformed into fuel.
Other countries have them in use but our 'do stuff always wrong ECO types' screamed to loud. Shame on them. Now store it all over the place.
The fly ash is used in cement and in 'cinder-blocks' a cement block for building. It is a common thread with the greenees - don't solve something, prevent it in the first place and go back to the bad old days.
Mart> >> On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 19:07:30 -0500, Leon
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
I'm sure you actually believe that.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
As I heard it - it is checker-board black and red.
They dumped a lot of bills on the counties to pay and have stolen a lot of counties money (law allows it), taxed the fool out of folks and has a balance in this years take, but not in the total RED mess they are into for many years.
CA is debt deep they are.
Mart> "Le>