columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Oct 11, 3:53 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
John M. wrote:
On Oct 11, 4:55 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 10, 7:27 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
September was 4th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA's global land
record. ...
Things would be SO much better now if we had just continued with our
nuclear initiatives 30+ years ago.
Just think: reduced CO2 emissions, less dependency on petroleum fuels,
less dependency on foreign energy sources, cheaper energy, less
newsgroups, no Al Gore, etc., etc., etc.
Join with me, Roger: GO NUCLEAR!
You are insane. Nuclear power is so expensive that it is never paid
off by the selling of electricity and must be government subsidized.
CO2 is a normal chemical in the environment and causes absolutely no
warming, despite the psychotic beliefs of the fanatics who enjoy the
doomsday prophecies of our use of fuel.
Brilliant greenie weenie enviromentalists that would exchange
completely harmless CO2 for plutonium and nuclear waste and the
inevitable accidents with prolific nuclear power.
Accidents can and will happen, regardless of the technology. You can
either accept this, or go with the status quo and live in fear.
Nuclear (LWR) is a step to better nuclear options (e.g. LFTR) that have
virtually none of the negative consequences you try to paint.
Yes, I may be insane, but that doesn't change the fact that nuclear is
THE transitory solution.
If you were to look into official statistics concerning how much
energy could be saved at the various, putative, ranked, levels of
expenditure on conservation, and then compare them with the costs
involving nuclear generation of the same quantity of energy, you would
find your claim about THE solution to be exceedingly thin.
Governments prefer generation to conservation because rich people
benefit from generation, while only poor people benefit from
conservation.
Conservation is to conserve; there is NO progression from conservation.

We need a solution for new energy sources. Conservation will not get us
there in any way, shape or form.

Nuclear IS the answer. It WAS the answer 30+ years ago, but because of
idiotic policy and fear, we currently have nothing.

Enlightened people prefer generation because it is an active source.
Ignorant people prefer conservation because it is NON ACTION.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

na, that is a bit of a myopic point of view, as you never mention
nuclear waste, storage long term and short term, and you also avoid
transportation of nuclear waste to such sites from the energy
production site.

I also don't mention building codes, how close outlets should be, and
myriad other issues.

Nuclear is messy, and carries a lot of baggage to be sure. A lot of the
issues have work-arounds or solutions, some don't. As an overall
solution, it is the best option that we have.

You, on the other hand, have added nothing to this conversation. You
have an alternative?

wrote:
On Oct 11, 8:12 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
On Oct 11, 3:53 pm, Peter Franks wrote:





Nuclear IS the answer. It WAS the answer 30+ years ago, but because of
idiotic policy and fear, we currently have nothing.
Enlightened people prefer generation because it is an active source.
Ignorant people prefer conservation because it is NON ACTION.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
na, that is a bit of a myopic point of view, as you never mention
nuclear waste, storage long term and short term, and you also avoid
transportation of nuclear waste to such sites from the energy
production site. Now somebody like you who thinks one thing "is" a
solution, but does not offer up solutions to problems associated with
the byproducts of nuclear power, has nothing to offer on this issue
except capital letters REPEATING the same idiotic opinions

Then the greenie weenies better look around to see who they are in bed
with. The right wingers who buy the bull**** science of climate
scaremongering are all for nuclear power. If McCain gets into office,
these 'liberals' better watch out as the enforcement and programs of
the right wing are ruthlessly imposed upon the lower and middle
classes.

The cost of building nuclear plants is prohibitive. The only means to
pay for them is government subsidy and deficit spending. So what sense
does this make?
The cost of electricity must be increased beyond imagination, or the
'private' companies must be supported by the government which is a
fiasco. Maybe the rich people will offer to pay much higher taxes so
that the average person will not have to pay 10 times or greater
electricity bills.

I guess Franks will be the one that allows the reactor to built at the
end of his street while he donates at least 3/4 of his income to
support it. It is always nice to see such interest and pledges of
support for the solution to the non-problem of AGW. Still waiting for
all this CO2 to cause the temperatures to exceed 1934, 1998, 1926 etc.

I have no problem living near nuclear, nor paying for it. It makes a
lot more sense than the 'alternative' nonsense sources being discussed
elsewhere.

Either propose a workable alternative, or accept the reality of nuclear.

john fernbach wrote:
On Oct 11, 10:55 am, Peter Franks wrote:
wrote:

Accidents can and will happen, regardless of the technology. You can
either accept this, or go with the status quo and live in fear.

Nuclear (LWR) is a step to better nuclear options (e.g. LFTR) that have
virtually none of the negative consequences you try to paint.

I'm so glad that we don't have to live in fear of nuclear power,
Peter.

I don't live in fear.

The information below is from a web site on the causes and long-term
effects of the Chernobyl nuclear accident in the Ukraine:

Chernobyl was and is a nightmare to be sure. Lots of mistakes were
made, and a lot of lessons have been learned. What are we doing w/ that
knowledge? Living in fear seems to be the answer to that question.

I prefer progress.

On Oct 14, 12:45*pm, Peter Franks wrote: I also don't
mention building codes, how close outlets should be, and myriad other
issues. Nuclear is messy, and carries a lot of baggage to be sure. *A
lot of the issues have work-arounds or solutions, some don't. *As an
overall solution, it is the best option that we have. You, on the
other hand, have added nothing to this conversation. *You have an
alternative?-

actually i have contributed to this conversation, as you have just
started to scratch the surface, but instead of trying to marginalize
the problem with your use of syntax, you should try addressing the
issues i.e. go little bit further as reality requires it. Now the
problem of nuclear waste, storage long term and short term, and
transportation to sites from the energy production site is a little
bit bigger problem than you characterize as "work arounds", but that
is your choice, just like you said it is the solution, but then when
challenged you place the caveat of work arounds on such a statement.
(hint maybe you need to do a little more research before you make such
a declaration)


as nuclear waste, storage long term and short term, and
transportation of nuclear waste to such sites from the energy
production site.

columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:45 pm, Peter Franks wrote: I also don't
mention building codes, how close outlets should be, and myriad other
issues. Nuclear is messy, and carries a lot of baggage to be sure. A
lot of the issues have work-arounds or solutions, some don't. As an
overall solution, it is the best option that we have. You, on the
other hand, have added nothing to this conversation. You have an
alternative?-

actually i have contributed to this conversation, as you have just
started to scratch the surface, but instead of trying to marginalize
the problem with your use of syntax, you should try addressing the
issues i.e. go little bit further as reality requires it. Now the
problem of nuclear waste, storage long term and short term, and
transportation to sites from the energy production site is a little
bit bigger problem than you characterize as "work arounds", but that
is your choice, just like you said it is the solution, but then when
challenged you place the caveat of work arounds on such a statement.
(hint maybe you need to do a little more research before you make such
a declaration)

Let me know when you recommend an alternative. A /viable/ alternative.

On Oct 12, 6:54*am, "John M."
wrote:
On Oct 12, 1:15 pm, wrote:

Still waiting for
all this CO2 to cause the temperatures to exceed 1934, 1998, 1926 etc.

What are you blathering about, you idiot. Temperatures in 1998
exceeded those of 1934, 1926, etc. already. What you are waiting for
is personal sanity, and it doesn't look as though it's coming your way
anytime soon.

Nice of a disciple of the fraud of the high priest Dancin Hansen to
chime in. US statistics which were much more accurately compiled
before WWII than world statistics do not show this. 1934 was much
warmer and 1926 is third behind 1998.

So what about the fact that in the terrible climate crisis of Algore
and his devoted fanatics, the temperature of 1998 has not been reached
again. When CO2 output is reaching 26 billion tons a year, and China
alone increasing CO2 at 11% a year relative to the US?

Man that is some climate crisis, failing crops, people dying cause
their AIR CONDITIONERS just can't keep up with the heat waves.
Evaporating oceans, New York CIty swamped by the estimated 1mm or so
of ocean rise in the last decade, which is mostly only from thermal
expansion???

You are right. I will begin to mindlessly repeat all the stupid things
you idiots repeat and believe and ignore the manipulation of the GISS
statistics by Hansen in search of my sanity. Thanks for the hint.

KD

On Oct 13, 2:50*pm, *Poetic Justice* -n-
Dog.com wrote:
James wrote:
http://chernobylfarms.com/

"john fernbach" wrote in ...
On Oct 11, 10:55 am, Peter Franks wrote:
wrote:

Accidents can and will happen, regardless of the technology. *You can
either accept this, or go with the status quo and live in fear.

Nuclear (LWR) is a step to better nuclear options (e.g. LFTR) that have
virtually none of the negative consequences you try to paint.

I'm so glad that we don't have to live in fear of nuclear power,
Peter.

I've lived near them for about 25 years, I never lost a nights sleep.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Glad you sleep well, PJ. Being able to sleep when you need to, no
matter what else is going on, is a great gift.

Unless you keep sleeping when the house catches fire.

On Oct 14, 1:38*pm, Peter Franks wrote:" Let me know
when you recommend an alternative. *A /viable/ alternative."

laughing, let me know when you have though out your so called solution
beyond your child like rhetoric, as you are the one who stated
something was the solution, and all i did was point out that your so
called solution creates more problems in the form of transportation,
short and long term storage of the byproducts from nuclear power
plants. Now if you cannot handle progressing past glassing over
problems you call "work arounds", and you need to characterize those
problems in such a way that it becomes obvious that you dont have a
clue beyond your myopic rhetoric, thats where your so called solution
becomes a joke....

On Oct 14, 10:51 pm, wrote:
On Oct 12, 6:54 am, "John M."
wrote:

On Oct 12, 1:15 pm, wrote:

Still waiting for
all this CO2 to cause the temperatures to exceed 1934, 1998, 1926 etc.

What are you blathering about, you idiot. Temperatures in 1998
exceeded those of 1934, 1926, etc. already. What you are waiting for
is personal sanity, and it doesn't look as though it's coming your way
anytime soon.

Nice of a disciple of the fraud of the high priest Dancin Hansen to
chime in. US statistics which were much more accurately compiled
before WWII than world statistics do not show this. 1934 was much
warmer and 1926 is third behind 1998.

Nope. Every single method researched shows 1998 the warmest year for
thousands of years.