Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

And if everybody tomorrow decided to ride the bus instead of driving to work, the busses would be full and people would have to walk to work.

But they don't.

The bike racks are only full about 5% of the time and I simply take the next bus.

Have you never in your life been in a traffic jam? You've never once needed 15 minutes more to get where you were going? I've never had to wait two busses (30 minutes) to get a spot on the bike rack. I bet you've been

If somehow the racks become more popular and more space is needed then the public transportation folks will simply reconfigure them. This isn't rocket science.

I have a theory which says that if bus occupancy increased that much, it might be possible to buy more busses. I'm not sure, though.

I wonder who would stand to lose FINANCIALLY if we could quickly replace all oil & coal burning plants with nuclear.

If your first reaction is to focus on the word "quickly", please don't bother responding, because it would mean you're pretending not to understand the real point of the question.

The reason the 20 or more canceled plants were canceled (some at near completion w/ billions already invested--TVA Bellefonte as one example), plus those that were shortsightedly shut down (Shoreham isn't the only example) were not done so for anything to do with somebody _else_ losing out. Nor has the 30-yr hiatus in new construction of nuclear units had anything to do with anything other than licensing a construction delays made it excessively risky to commit to nuclear generation. Again, nothing whatsoever to do with your conspiracy theories.

--

Again JOE SPARE BEDROOM POSTS S*IT what dribble from a f*ck head

I have worked at two places already where many people commute by bike, and some or most of the people ride bikes for the job. Neither workplace had a shower, and one of them was a bicycle messenger dispatch office. I never heard many complaints about biker odors, except for a couple with apparent mental problems and who did not keep their jobs long.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Again JOE SPARE BEDROOM POSTS S*IT what dribble from a f*ck head

Ransley, how many times do you have to be taught that your drunken rants are pointless.

Conspiracy? A number of utilities have purchased changes in the rules so they can avoid paying for improvements to coal burning facilities. And I do mean purchased.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ...

Oh, gawd, not this again....we went 'round that barn only a few months ago and your claims were shown false at that time. :(

--

They're still true, which you missed.

The point here is that someday, I think you'll find that not all the blame for the lack of nuke plants can be placed with environmentalists and their legal actions. That's the simple, most visible answer, though. The invisible answers are the ones we need to know more about. Cheney knew this when he classified all information surrounding his energy policy meetings.

No, they're not. You provided no substantiation of _any_ of your previous claims.

I've never said environmentalists were the entire cause, but surely had a major impact with both delaying and in poisoning public opinion by similar scare tactics as those you try (whether you really believe this crap or just like to spout off, I've not yet been able to tell for absolute certain. One hopes for the latter; suspects the former). TMI was key while of no consequence whatsoever in causing any detectable offsite injury or damage it did provide a much-needed-at-the-time focus and re-impetus for the anti-nuke lobby.

The actual straw that broke the camel's back was the resulting apparently unending increase in retrofits, upgrades and additional licensing burdens placed on the other plants under construction or still in licensing hearings that stretched completion times to as much as 15 years and untold billions in additional cost. That created such an unfavorable economic climate the utilities simply cut their losses and either canceled orders or quit construction and abandoned units in somce cases nearly complete at the cost of billions.

--

Heck Teddy Kennedy's car has killed more people than nuclear plants, and I have seen the bumper sticker that proves it...(g)

snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com:

maybe that's because most all of them stunk,so they were all used to being around stinky people..... and being diehard bike commuters,were more tolerant of odor caused by biking.

Been following this thread with interest, and sometimes a little amusement, I might add.

In general, I agree with the position that nuclear is probably the best short/medium term solution to providing our energy needs.

But it seems to me that vilifying environmentalists as having done no good by opposing nuclear power is an inconsistent argument when at the same time one praises the nuclear industry's safety record. Here's why:

The current state of affairs, both good and bad aspects, was arrived at via long series of events. Demands of the market, developments by industry, regulation and oversight by federal agencies, and yes, opposition by citizens and environmental groups, all intertwine in a system of action, reaction, checks, balances, disturbances and corrections.

One can't rationally blame environmentalists for all the bad and give credit to industry for all the good in such a complex situation. Reality is somewhere in the middle.

If there was no environmental opposition ever, the current state would be different for sure. But no one can be sure whether or not it would be better, just different. Once can never be certain about the outcome of a path not chosen.

Once would like to think that industry, free of oversight and regulation, would always act in the best interests of citizens. But history is chock full of counter examples. So when the stakes are high, as they certainly are here, government watches over industry, and the citizens watch over government. I for one think that's how it should work, despite getting out of kilter at times.

It may well be that the balance swung too far toward the nuclear power opponents in the last 2 decades. That appears to be changing. But vilifying environmentalists and others who oppose nuclear energy without recognizing that they have had and should have a valid role in the system of checks and balances is wrong, IMO.

Paul F.

Paul Franklin wrote: ...

...

If you're criticizing me, I've never said there wasn't value in environmental work -- I've only criticized the demonization of nuclear and the manner in which many environmentalist organizations have told less than the honest story of what the relative risks are of one alternative vis a vis another.

--

Unfortunately for the power generating industry, they get lumped into the same category as corporations which *do* foist their questionable practices on the public on a regular basis. Oh well. I guess they have to deal with that fate.

Meanwhile, there's an important word to keep in mind when you're tempted to use the word "environmentalist". Try substituting the word "customer", which pretty much ends all disagreements about whether it's important to address people's concerns. My doctor has stopped using the word "patient", and uses "customer" instead, since it's much more correct, and it takes him down a notch from the pedestal on which some doctors place themselves. Your industry should do the same.

You will now ask why ALL customers don't express the same concerns as the subset you like to call "environmentalists". The answer is a very simple one. Let's see if you know the answer.

But, I will add I do believe the environmental movement had no significant role in the development of reactor safety standards -- those rules were put in place by the NRC almost solely on the basis of engineering principles to eliminate insofar as possible any serious accident and to provide systems to mitigate the consequences of various failures.

In my experience environmental concerns were raised was almost always on the basis of siting issues and environmental impact statements. Many of these objections I personally believe were knowingly filed simply as obstructionist tactics to delay and hopefully cause enough extra cost and difficulty that a utility would choose to withdraw the application rather than continue the battle. I really don't believe many of these cases had any real significant environmental issues at stake.

As a result of these, there may be a few ancillary improvements in how given plants are situated on a site or similar small improvements locally, but overall I think the effect has been minimal at best. There's probably more to be said for some of their work in the area of spent fuel storage, but again, that's kinda' a toss-up because we were prevented from closing the fuel cycle by the earlier decision confusing nuclear weapons proliferation w/ commercial nuclear power fuel reprocessing.

As in many things, I'm sure it depends on whose ox is being gored... :)

The coal and railroad industry.

Every week, 4-5, ~135 car trainloads of "electricity" pass through my town enroute to Omaha Public Power District's North Omaha generating station.

"Quickly" didn't phase me a bit, but your disclaimer did. What am I missing?

CUSTOMERS

That's your mantra. CUSTOMERS

Another reason to repeat the mantra forever is that when it becomes obvious that you're ignoring your customers' concerns, we make a logical leap to a conclusion that's been proven for other industries: You have purchased the appropriate regulators so you can wildcat without concern for your customers. Whether it's true or not, this is the assumption, based on solid facts from other industries.