Kurt Ullman wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@70-3-168-216.area.spcsdns.net:
OTOH,why don't they just process the "regular trash" and separate recyclables from it,burn the rest for electric and steam generation? What's left is much smaller and less apt to damage ground water or spread pollution.
snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com:
I've used Boston's "T" mass transit;there was just no parking to be had in downtown Boston.Trouble is,you had to walk blocks after getting off it to get to your destination,or pay for a taxicab.In bad weather,that's not much fun.
Jim Redelfs wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.phx.highwinds-media.com:
except the many spent rod holding pools have no containment.
So what? They can't physically make a nuclear explosive in any configuration as they are insufficiently enriched even before being "burned" in the reactor which only further reduces the enrichment (and adds fission product "poisons").
I would have agreed with that assumption during construction of the Interstates. Now, however the State Highway Departments are largely responsible for maintenance of even Federal Highways, albeit with Fed dollars to a certain extent. I don't see any real reason for the Fed taxes to continue since all it is doing is siphoning off money that the states could be using for stuff they need/want instead of what the Feds impose.
Well, maybe some education on issues you're ranting against would be a worthy objective as a New Year's resolution.
At the same gas price point, undoubtedly quite a large number. There's no difference no than at the time of the 70s gas crunch when there was a temporary shift(*)--the shift will occur on its own as the cost outweighs the perceived benefit.
(*) I, otoh, needing a larger vehicle at the time, took advantage of the disfavor and bought a large, almost new vehicle which had been traded in for a smaller one. Owing to the market, I got that vehicle with all its comfort and size for far less than another vehicle and over the lifetime of the car that difference in initial investment made for a much cheaper transportation alternative with far higher convenience. Them is market forces.
--
Now _THAT_ was enlightening...
--
So you're going to have us magically be "beamed aboard, Scotty" instead? Whatever system it is, there is maintenance in perpetuity unless you simply stand in one spot forever.
--
One word--cost.
Second word--practicality.
The second reduces to the first in large part, but there are some added factors...
Because the infrastructure is there and continues to need expansion at a macro scale as well as micro.
--
Which the states do. Heck the new Interstate that they are talking about doing around here (extension of I-69) is pretty much being run (and largely paid for) with state funds. Feds don't really have any dog in this hunt anymore that the states can't do on their own.
Disagree...
--
Agree to...
Aout 3-4 milligrams.
Well, I do breate air, and it gets mercury from coal fired power plants. I also eat stuff that gets whatever is in the air. I like to eat fish, and they say mercury gets into fish because of the way the food chain and aquatic life work. With half our power coming from coal, replacing a 60 watt incandescent with a 15 watt CFL for 4,000 hours reduces electricity consumption enough to prevent 7 milligrams of mercury from being spewed into the air by coal fired power plants.
I thought DC did make schools, hospitals, industrial buildings, offices and large retail facilities dispose of their fluorescent lamps in a proper manner. As recently as the 1980's, 4-foot fluorescents had on average 80 milligrams of mercury. And they did go into dumpsters that recently.
As for what you can do? To see what is required of you, and what is available to you, as a function of where you live, go to:
I have noticed a lack of discussion here on one thing that I have seen in sci.engr.lighting when incandescent lamp bans came up: Taxing them rather than banning them.
Also discussed in sci.engr.lighting more than in other newsgroups when incandescent lamp bans get a lot of discussion:
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Akron, OH had a trash burning power plant 10-15 years ago. It was state of the art at the time, but ran into numerous problems, including explosions resulting from chance mixtures of "stuff" in the waste stream, constantly exceeding air pollution regulations due to burning of toxic materials in the waste stream that were not practical (at least then) to identify and separate, and having to treat all the remnants from the burning process as hazardous waste because of very high heavy metal and toxics concentrations. Yes, there was less material to dispose of, but what remained was very nasty. They finally shut it down. Maybe technology has advanced now, but separating a high volume solid waste stream into stuff that is OK to burn and stuff that isn't OK to burn is a hard problem. Especially when you consider that materials that by themselves may be OK to burn, may *not* be OK to burn when combined with other materials.
What might be more practical is more point of origin waste burning power generation, such as is done at sawmills. When you know with some degree of certainty what's in the waste stream, it's a lot easier to burn it without problems. Burn the stuff that can be safely burned before it gets mixed in with stuff that can't or shouldn't be burned. Of course, that might work for industrial situations, but it's probably not practical for co-mingled household waste streams.
Paul F.
Errr, Kurt... we're still waiting for a demonstration that you know anything at all about this.
Or did you just notice you'd been discussing the back of my hand with me?
ause of
400 posts later and only a few hit it
In spite of an occassional setback, we will prevail. It's the "Roe Effect."
For those that don't know, the "Roe Effect" is the result of legalizing abortion.
It is estimated that, in 1982, there were 50,000 abortions in Florida. Those that were not born in 1982 would have been eligible to vote in 2000. Bush won Florida, and with it the presidency, by 500-odd votes.
A more detailed explanation here:
Regretable, but we conservatives always try to look on the bright side.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.