<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
When you say 'We would all be against ____' you could just as soon poke
a stick in to Old
Coot's eye!<br>
<br>
Read this before you turn off your computer, disconnect your
refrigerator, tell Pepco to shut off you electricity and ask Washington
Gas to disconnect your stove and furnace.<br>
<br>
20% of the electricity in the U.S. is generated by nuclear plants. The
other, almost 80% of the electricity you are using to read this is
generated by fossil fuel or hydro-electric generators. Yes there is
some electricity generated by wind farms and some solar.<br>
<br>
So the question is which downside do you want, and who's backyard do
you
want to put it in?<br>
<br>
A solution to the nuclear wast issue in the U.S. has been blocked in
part by money from the oil companies that have a vested interest in not
having an answer to the nuclear problem. Europe, (France and Germany
mainly)
have implemented a long term answer to the problem.<br>
<br>
Do we even need to list the issues with fossil fuel plants? Greenhouse
gases, fly-ash, coal mines, black lung...<br>
<br>
All through the Northwest they are retro-fitting hydro-electric dams to
save the fish. Dams on the Colorado River are being "flushed" to save
the
environment in the Grand Canyon. The lakes behind all the dams are
filling up with silt. When the lakes fill up there will be no more
power and there are no more rivers to dam. Well there was the Three
Rivers Gorge in China but that is someone else's backyard.<br>
<br>
Wind farms kill birds and bats. It seems that the NIMBYs are the ones
not getting paid to have a tower put in their fields. Farmers seem to
like them. West Texas seems to like them. The folks on Cape Code don't
like looking at them, but I don't think they are getting paid. Yes,
farmers are being paid several thousand dollars per year per tower.<br>
<br>
Solar cells are a good example of transfered hazard. Solar cells are
one of the dirtiest products now in production. The mining of rare
earths needed and the manufacturing
process creates more byproducts that making computer chips. I believe
at the the current cost it requires 15-20 years to recover the cost of
solar cells if you want to get off the grid.<br>
<br>
There is also the issue of matching the time and place of the need with
the time and place of the source. The wind doesn't blow all the time
and the sun don't shine all the time. = This not being the British
Empire, the sun does set. =<br>
<br>
Electricity is just a means of moving energy from one place to an
other. The other half of that movement, the dirt from here to there as
the energy moves from there to here, is only lately being realized as
an issue. And even more resonantly that movement should include the
path clear back to/through the manufacturing process. <br>
<br>
So the question I ask in the beginning was where and into who's
backyard do you want to move the "dirt" so you can use some electricity?<br>
<br>
My answer to that rhetorical question is nuclear. Because the cost are
less and can be controlled. In France over 80% of their electricity is
generated by nuclear plants. They addressed the nuclear wast issue by
developing the skills and tools to process the wast which reduces the
wast storage problem. They have also developed, with the Germans,
storage facilities. There have both long term and short term storage
facilities. They process what they know how to and store for latter
processing what they don't know how to process. Some wast is stored for
what they expect to be thousands of years. One of the products of this
processing is additional nuclear fuel. The value of this "by-product"
is enough that it pays to processing of the spent fuel cells (They
process wast from Germany, France, Sweden (I think) and Russia).<br>
<br>
In the future, I suggest you be more selective in who you include in
the royal we. Some may not agree with you as to which "dangers/lethal
products" represent a real current danger and which represent a
controllable potential danger. If ever one (or just a majority) agreed
on a solution to some of todays problems, it would be nice. However...
Oh that wasn't a "royal we." You meant we as a first person plural
pronoun. Then disregard all of this and turn your computer back on.<br>
<br>
Now what were we talking about? Oh ya Raytheon. Well <strike>we</strike>
I think... no, lets not be redundant.<br>
<br>
Cranky as always,<br>
Coot<br>
<br>
catarina correia wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:4d6cda4d0710090809i1b5e8945q887f0c4353b51b90@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;">What if a nuclear plant were moving in? We
would all be against it because of the potentially dangerous/lethal
products being produced that might contaminate our community and affect
our children. I guess as long as the company is manufacturing products
that kill other people's children then its ok? <span></span> </span></font></p>
<font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; color: navy; font-family: Arial;"></span></font><font
color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; color: navy; font-family: Arial;"></span></font></blockquote>
</body>
</html>