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

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

"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.

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.

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.