|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
In 1953, They Were Already Plotting To Make Al Gore
On Feb 20, 12:59*pm, Sam Wormley quoted, in
part: This revolution in the way North America produces its electricity is sending shock waves through the nuclear industry in Europe too. New nuclear build will be spectacularly uneconomic if a fracking industry is successful in the United Kingdom. The Government can simply pass laws forbidding the use of fossil fuels to produce electricity, and later mandating the exclusive use of carbon-neutral motor fuel. If the externality of global warming is unacceptable, it does not have to be borne. If we don't bother, and there are mass famines in tropical areas as a result, the people living there will be understandably annoyed with us. John Savard |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
In 1953, They Were Already Plotting To Make Al Gore
On Feb 20, 1:36*pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
wrote: Low-hanging fruit? You may be a primate but I'm not swinging through the branches, Tarzan. This is a common figure of speech, referring to low-cost opportunities for achieving the first part of a desired result before diminishing returns set in. John Savard |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
In 1953, They Were Already Plotting To Make Al Gore
"Quadibloc" wrote in message
... On Feb 20, 1:36 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" wrote: Low-hanging fruit? You may be a primate but I'm not swinging through the branches, Tarzan. This is a common figure of speech, referring to low-cost opportunities for achieving the first part of a desired result before diminishing returns set in. John Savard How about "spacetime", "relativistic" and "Lorentz contraction" ? Are they common figures of speech with diminishing returns too? -- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway. When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
In 1953, They Were Already Plotting To Make Al Gore
On Feb 20, 10:14*pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Feb 20, 12:59*pm, Sam Wormley quoted, in part: This revolution in the way North America produces its electricity is sending shock waves through the nuclear industry in Europe too. New nuclear build will be spectacularly uneconomic if a fracking industry is successful in the United Kingdom. The Government can simply pass laws forbidding the use of fossil fuels to produce electricity, Which "Government?" (Note the capital G.) The US government, the Canadian government, the Japanese government, the Russian government, the Chinese government, or some hypothetical "world" government? Currently half or more of the electricity is generated with fossil fuels. You were just presented with an economic reason why nuclear often does not make economic sense. Are you willing to cut your electricity use in half? Are you willing to invest your own funds in nuclear power plants? and later mandating the exclusive use of carbon-neutral motor fuel. If the externality of global warming is unacceptable, it does not have to be borne. You have a bit of a hypocrisy problem, don't you? You undoubtedly have a carbon footprint that exceeds that of the average world citizen by a wide margin. You complain about externalities while taking advantage of those same externalities. If we don't bother, and there are mass famines in tropical areas as a result, the people living there will be understandably annoyed with us. Famine relief has historically been provided by developed countries, which, were it not for their relative prosperity, would not have had a surplus of either the food, funds or transportation needed to provide such relief. Understand that famines are nothing new. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
In 1953, They Were Already Plotting To Make Al Gore
On Feb 20, 10:37*am, Quadibloc wrote:
On Feb 20, 3:39*am, wrote: once the price of food, clothing and shelter goes through the roof because we intentionally went down the path you outlined. As I've pointed out, we have a choice. We can produce nuclear power, to replace fossil fuel uses - some more easily than others. There's plenty of low-hanging fruit. Uranium has a very concentrated energy content, much more than fossil fuels, so hauling it to power plants won't be a net energy loss. It is not just the cost of transporting the uranium, but the cost of mining and processing it, not to mention the increased costs of engineering and constructing a nuke plant versus a coal, gas or oil- fired plant. To a very large extent, if something costs more it is because more energy was needed in its production. The EROEI on nuke plants is still much lower than that of fossil fuels. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1953 UFO Hoax Mars Monkey (with photo) | Pat Flannery | History | 0 | July 31st 08 03:27 PM |
Plotting | Nog | Policy | 2 | July 28th 05 05:22 AM |
1953 JBIS article | Paolo Ulivi | Policy | 3 | December 1st 03 11:19 PM |
1953 JBIS article | Paolo Ulivi | History | 3 | December 1st 03 11:19 PM |
1953 JBIS article | Paolo Ulivi | Astronomy Misc | 3 | December 1st 03 11:19 PM |