Part 2...Re: Facts
- "The best long-term solution is nuclear."
Yes. Tell Japan that. I'm sure they well all agree as they start dropping dead in the future.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@...> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: email@example.com
> > [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of
> > foghorn1980@...
> > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 3:26 PM
> > To: email@example.com
> > Subject: [creationevolutiondebate] Part 2...Re: Facts
> > 'Any questions ?"
> > I have a question for you Tin Man. Obama has already stated as fact he
> will do
> > what he can to make your energy bill skyrocket. So who will be fanning
> you to
> > keep you cool and rubbing your ass to keep you warm when you can't pay
> > $800 electric or gas bill?
> Two words: MARGIN COST. This, along with elasticity of demand is what
> dictates the most profitable price to charge for a commodity. Anyone who
> expects corporations to charge LESS than that is probably looking for some
> kind of pseudosocialist price control. If the most expensive portion of
> your energy comes from oil, then oil sands pricing is going to eventually
> control the end price to the consumer. I doubt that will reach $800/mo. for
> the average home. Of course in a down economy, there are still periods here
> the demand does not push onto the high cost sources. During those periods,
> with lower oil prices, that may actually BE the cheapest way to go. Of
> course each individual utility has its own break points. Here in Western
> Canada, the bulk of production is hydro and the rest natural gas or coal so
> that oil does not really factor in.
> The best long-term solution is nuclear. Ontario has done quite well in that
> respect. So has western Europe. Eastern Europe has too many poorly
> designed plants. Japan, too. India and China seem to be duplicating the
> Canadian plants, which, being coolant moderated are far less likely to melt
> down. In fact I don't see how you could MAKE one do it on purpose!
> Dave Oldridge
> Dave O:Island)
> Most of the disadvantages stem from poor (cheap) design.
> Not so IMHO. Of three nuclear accidents, two (Chernobyl and Three Mile
> were caused by operator error and one (Fukushima) was caused by a naturalthat was
> disaster. Only the Japanese tsunami could be attributed to design and
> the seawall protecting the emergency generators for the coolant pumpswasn't
> built for a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami.Dave O:
Yet all three plants were DESIGNED to melt down if they lost coolant.
That's what I'm talking about. You could dump ALL the coolant out of a
Candu plant and the only thing that would happen is a shutdown that is
ENDEMIC to the design. In other words, the plant simply cannot operate
without coolant because the coolant is what sustains the neutron flux in the
core and, without that, the core becomes just a lump of slightly
I had never heard of the Candu design. Neat.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]