| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bret Cahill
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:22 pm Post subject: Re: No One Ever Said Post Peak Oil Would Be A Rose Garden |
 |
|
[quote]Nope, there is no on and on.
[/quote]
Show your calculations.
Pathetic.
Ain>t gonna happen
Nuke |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:34 pm Post subject: Re: No One Ever Said Post Peak Oil Would Be A Rose Garden |
|
|
On Jul 29, 12:22 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]Nope, there is no on and on.
Show your calculations.
[/quote]
Stop being such a hypocrite. You cannot demand from others what you
never provide, yourself. When you give sources for your bald
assertions, then you can demand specificity and hard numbers from
others. Right now, everytime you demand to see the calculations, it
is an instance of the pot calling the kettle black.
You do want people to not dismiss you out of hand?
[quote]
Pathetic.
Ain>t gonna happen
Nuke[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rod Speed
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 11:05 pm Post subject: Re: No One Ever Said Post Peak Oil Would Be A Rose Garden |
|
|
tg <tgdenning@earthlink.net> wrote
[quote]rlbell.ns...@gmail.com <rlbell.ns...@gmail.com> wrote
BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote
If you don>t like my solutions then post your own.
Either lead follow or get out of the way.
Nuclear power.
Show yer calculations including the cost of stainless steel.
Who are you to demand such? When you are challenged all that you do is bluster.
The nuclear powerplants operating in the US are making
huge piles of profits, while paying into the disposal pool.
[/quote]
And the obvious approach on disposal is to design them so they can
be filled with concrete etc when they have passed their useby date
and leave them where they be and build the new one adjacent.
[quote]Follow along, or get out of the way.
Where>s the leadership?
Nuclear proliferation is a non-issue for nuclear power.
At least not in the U. S. where every WalMart has MX missiles.
It is an issue in global affairs, but it is distinct from nuclear power. ?
Yer floggin' a dead horse.
The number of nuclear power generating reactors needed by the Manhattan
Project was zero. ?The only link between nuclear power and nuclear
proliferation is as a supply of electricity to the enrichment
plant. The israelis still have not built a power reactor, and the
canadians have been looking at peaceful nuclear reactor
applications for over sixty years-- with no bombs built!
Not that I have anything against nukes but if you digress too much
then you won>t git them to believe you are a leader.
if you have nothing against nukes, why are you not trying to promote it?
The science of waste disposal has long since been solved. ?The
political problem of waste disposal is being held up by
environmentalists for no good scientific reason-- they just want to
stop nuclear power (and force us to burn coal).
Nuclear power will allow you to power those electric tractors that
you are so fond of.
Actually solar will do just fine.
The required collector area 4 square meters for every three
kilowatt*hours, divided by the charge time in hours and divided again
by the efficiency of the collector. A full battery charge must be
collected within the time that a charge is used, or the tractor will
be sidelined for lack of energy. The rooftops of the typical
collection of farmhouse, barn, and outbuildings will not have enough
area to support it all.
Without the cheap electricity that nuclear power is proven to be
able to deliver, voters will have to choose between burning coal,
or a drastically reduced standard of living. ?Short of an
environmentalist dictatorship, we can be fairly certain of
increased coal burning, with global warming prevention abandoned
as 'too expensive'.
The hydrogen economy is stymied by electricity being too expensive.
Nuclear power will solve that problem.
The real problem is a cheap battery.
A cheap battery is a useless lump without energy to charge it.
Electrifying the transport sector will require a many-fold increase
in the electrical power grid. Natural gas has the problem that it
will also run out, so we are stuck with nuclear, so we may as well
make a virtue out of necessity.
The reason we don>t have more nuclear plants has nothing to do with
environmentalists, it has to do with economics and right-wing ideology.
[/quote]
It has more to do with a mindless reaction to 3 mile island.
[quote]France has lots of nuclear plants, and that>s because they were
not tied to phony arguments about the wonderful private sector.
[/quote]
Nope, because they have fewer viable alternatives. Japan too.
[quote]If you want the gummint to subsidize nuclear plants (which
it does, in various ways,) then you should hire the socialist
Frenchies to build and run them in their terribly inefficient
socialist top-down regulated and uniform manner.
[/quote]
Or dont bother with the socialists and do it the way the Japs did it with the rightards doing it.
[quote]And now that I think about it, I guess they aren>t so
inefficient, since they have no problem relying on
nuclear power for what---80% of their electricity?
The other problem that you have with nuclear as a solution
to CO2 or other issues is that you just can>t build the things
fast enough, even if you streamline the regulatory process.
[/quote]
Wrong, the frogs have managed to do that fine.
[quote]You have to get an enormous amount of capital together,
[/quote]
Nope.
[quote]you need stuff like cement (big CO2 source),
[/quote]
Nothing like the coal fired power station it replaces would be.
[quote]you need qualified welders,
[/quote]
It was perfectly possible to train far more of those than would ever
be needed for nukes during WW2. Many of them women even.
[quote]and on and on.
[/quote]
Nope, there is no on and on.
[quote]In the short term of 20-30 years the absolute easiest,
cheapest and largest improvement would come from
conservation and efficiency. No need for new tech.
[/quote]
No need for new tech with nukes either.
[quote]Oh yeah and maybe some reduction in birth rates.
[/quote]
Nope, not one modern first world country is even self replacing on population now if you take out migration. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
John Fields
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:29 am Post subject: Re: No One Ever Said Post Peak Oil Would Be A Rose Garden |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:22:02 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]Nope, there is no on and on.
Show your calculations.
Pathetic.
Ain>t gonna happen
Nuke
[/quote]
---
Dodge.
JF |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bret Cahill
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:53 pm Post subject: Re: No One Ever Said Post Peak Oil Would Be A Rose Garden |
|
|
[quote]You do want people to not dismiss you out of hand?
[/quote]
BINGO!
This guy must have an IQ above single digits!
He figgered it out!
Here, I>ll spell out the obvious:
If you don>t like my posts, then don>t read them.
Don>t respond to them.
Go to alt.conspiracy with all the other nut jobs.
Bret Cahill |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bret Cahill
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:45 pm Post subject: Re: No One Ever Said Post Peak Oil Would Be A Rose Garden |
|
|
[quote]You do want people to not dismiss you out of hand?
BINGO!
This guy must have an IQ above single digits!
He figgered it out!
Here, I>ll spell out the obvious:
If you don>t like my posts, then don>t read them.
Don>t respond to them.
Go to alt.conspiracy with all the other nut jobs.
[/quote]
[quote]This is USENET
[/quote]
Cite?
Show your work.
Huge. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
T. Keating
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:02 pm Post subject: Re: No One Ever Said Post Peak Oil Would Be A Rose Garden |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:05:43 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]The reason we don>t have more nuclear plants has nothing to do with
environmentalists, it has to do with economics and right-wing ideology.
It has more to do with a mindless reaction to 3 mile island.
[/quote]
Let>s see..
TMI Unit 2 went into meltdown less than four months after going
on-line for the first time!!!.. (Dec 1978 ->March 1979).. That>s
one hell of a rate of return.. NOT...
And the operators released over two million curries into the local
environment. Sending several thousand area residents to early deaths
and scores of others facing increased occurances of radiation related
illnesses.
http://www.tmia.com/history/tmilegalhistory.html |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Eeyore
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:18 pm Post subject: Re: No One Ever Said Post Peak Oil Would Be A Rose Garden |
|
|
"T. Keating" wrote:
[quote]And the operators released over two million curries into the local
environment. Sending several thousand area residents to early deaths
[/quote]
Must have been shocking Indian cooks they used !
My data (American Academy of Sciences) says there are NO early deaths
predicted in the general population surrounding TMI IIRC.
I suspect some of the operators may not be so lucky.
Graham |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:23 pm Post subject: Re: No One Ever Said Post Peak Oil Would Be A Rose Garden |
|
|
On Jul 29, 1:34 pm, "rlbell.ns...@gmail.com" <rlbell.ns...@gmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]On Jul 29, 12:22 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
> Nope, there is no on and on.
Show your calculations.
Stop being such a hypocrite. You cannot demand from others what you
never provide, yourself. When you give sources for your bald
assertions, then you can demand specificity and hard numbers from
others. Right now, everytime you demand to see the calculations, it
is an instance of the pot calling the kettle black.
You do want people to not dismiss you out of hand?
[/quote]
No, he DOES want people to dismiss him out of hand.
He is a sockpuppet for the corpwhore neoconspiracy,
who want leftards to be laughingstocks. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bret Cahill
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:42 pm Post subject: Re: No One Ever Said Post Peak Oil Would Be A Rose Garden |
|
|
[quote]Er, why don>t y>all just plonk him...?
[/quote]
Exactly!
I>m opposed to censorship so we all know I cannot eliminate my
readership altogether.
But if we all work together we can reduce it.
Now this will take will power in the beginning but after a couple of
weeks you won>t even notice it.
Bret Cahill |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
T. Keating
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:57 pm Post subject: Re: No One Ever Said Post Peak Oil Would Be A Rose Garden |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:18:43 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]
"T. Keating" wrote:
And the operators released over two million curries into the local
environment. Sending several thousand area residents to early deaths
Must have been shocking Indian cooks they used !
My data (American Academy of Sciences) says there are NO early deaths
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^[/quote]
And what organization is that..
P.S.. The NAS changed their basic position on ionizing radiation in
2005.. Has anyone bothered to take a second look since then???
[quote]predicted i
[/quote]
^^^^^^^^^^
Hah... And a doubling of the neonatal mortality rate isn>t a clue??
That>s over a hundred deaths just in that one statistic..
http://www.tmia.com/history/tmilegalhistory.html |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
John Fields
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:30 pm Post subject: Re: No One Ever Said Post Peak Oil Would Be A Rose Garden |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:53:49 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]You do want people to not dismiss you out of hand?
BINGO!
This guy must have an IQ above single digits!
He figgered it out!
Here, I>ll spell out the obvious:
If you don>t like my posts, then don>t read them.
Don>t respond to them.
Go to alt.conspiracy with all the other nut jobs.
[/quote]
---
Guess what, Brat?
This is USENET (Well, it is for those of us who don>t play baby games
through Google groups) where anyone is free to read your posts and, if
they feel like it, to comment in any way they want to.
And guess what else?
There>s not one goddam thing you can do about it except jump up and
down and whine and cry and stamp your little feet and hold your breath
until you turn blue in the face, LOL!
JF |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rod Speed
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:16 am Post subject: Re: No One Ever Said Post Peak Oil Would Be A Rose Garden |
|
|
T. Keating <tkusenet@ktcnslt.com> wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
The reason we don>t have more nuclear plants has nothing to do with
environmentalists, it has to do with economics and right-wing ideology.
It has more to do with a mindless reaction to 3 mile island.
Let>s see..
TMI Unit 2 went into meltdown less than four months after
going on-line for the first time!!!.. (Dec 1978 ->March 1979)..
That>s one hell of a rate of return.. NOT...
[/quote]
And the french had enough of a clue to produce 80% of their electricity
using nukes anyway and got a hell of a lot of advantages from doing that.
We werent actually stupid enough to give up on widebody aircraft when
we did have a few of them go bang and produce a lousy rate of return.
[quote]And the operators released over two million curries into the local environment.
[/quote]
Fart in the bath compared with what all those coal fired power stations are doing.
And its India that produces most curries, TMI produced curies.
[quote]Sending several thousand area residents to early deaths
[/quote]
Bare faced pig ignorant lie.
[quote]and scores of others facing increased occurances of radiation related illnesses.
[/quote]
Bare faced pig ignorant lie.
And even if that was true, the coal fired power stations do that in spades anyway.
> http://www.tmia.com/history/tmilegalhistory.html |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kris Krieger
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:17 am Post subject: Re: No One Ever Said Post Peak Oil Would Be A Rose Garden |
|
|
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in
news:an1194dqj2qulg5jp55155fjurc2l155dt@4ax.com:
[quote]On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:53:49 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
You do want people to not dismiss you out of hand?
BINGO!
This guy must have an IQ above single digits!
He figgered it out!
Here, I>ll spell out the obvious:
If you don>t like my posts, then don>t read them.
Don>t respond to them.
Go to alt.conspiracy with all the other nut jobs.
---
Guess what, Brat?
This is USENET (Well, it is for those of us who don>t play baby games
through Google groups) where anyone is free to read your posts and, if
they feel like it, to comment in any way they want to.
And guess what else?
There>s not one goddam thing you can do about it except jump up and
down and whine and cry and stamp your little feet and hold your breath
until you turn blue in the face, LOL!
JF
[/quote]
Er, why don>t y>all just plonk him...?
You know you can>t change his mind, which means that trying to do so is a
waste of time and energy. Life is too short to waste it on such
unconstructive games - and every time you reply, it means you>ve allowed
him ot get you worked up to some degree, and no matter how small that
degree migh tbe, it means you>re allowing him to manipulate you into
playing his games on his terms. Does that really make any sense?
He keeps telling people to stop reading his posts. I figure that the only
polite (and sensible) thing to do is oblige him. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rod Speed
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:18 am Post subject: Re: No One Ever Said Post Peak Oil Would Be A Rose Garden |
|
|
T. Keating <tkusenet@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
[quote]On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:18:43 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
"T. Keating" wrote:
And the operators released over two million curries into the
local environment. Sending several thousand area residents to
early deaths
Must have been shocking Indian cooks they used !
My data (American Academy of Sciences) says there are NO early deaths
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And what organization is that..
P.S.. The NAS changed their basic position on ionizing radiation in
2005.. Has anyone bothered to take a second look since then???
predicted i
^^^^^^^^^^
Hah... And a doubling of the neonatal mortality rate isn>t a clue??
[/quote]
Pure fantasy. That wasnt due to TMI.
[quote]That>s over a hundred deaths just in that one statistic..
[/quote]
Pity it wasnt due to TMI.
That wasnt even seen with Chernobyle.
> http://www.tmia.com/history/tmilegalhistory.html |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
