Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [hreg] Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming

Expand Messages
  • Roxanne Boyer
    I agree that we will probably never run out of fossil fuels However, they are becoming more expensive to extract and of poorer quality, except for what is in
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 7, 2004
      I agree that we will probably never run out of fossil fuels  However, they are becoming more expensive to extract and of poorer quality, except for what is in the Middle East. Even with the taking over of Iraq, OPEC was not intimidated and continues to raise prices.  The time is coming (statistical models show about 2040, unless a step change occurs) when oil & gas will just be to expensive to burn.  The cost of renewables is becoming more competitive every year.  I believe that Generation X and Y will experience major changes in the energy industry.  Many will experience economic "depression" compared to previous generation, but I doubt many will go hungry.  America is still a contry full of vibrant, creative, industrious people that can solve problems and create new opportunities.  I hope the next big area of national research funding will be solar related (after the fuel cell and national security fads blows over). 
       
      Also, a thought on wind.  Wind power has tremendous potential as an economic renewable energy.  I am disturbed by the fact that Wind Turbines kill birds and this fact has stumped wind farm projects along the coast - Galveston for example.  I have seen the massive flocks during migrations and have a hard time imagining a line of turbines in the way.  A few thoughts... 1) A few hundred birds may die each year; a small number compared to the massive animal life lost each year due to oil spills.  2) It seems we could invent something that would keep the birds away from the turbines.  3) It seems we could place the turbines in places away from major migration paths (or do the birds use the same wind that we want to harness?).
       
      -Chris 
       
    • classified
      the birds reportedly fly into an occasional turbine, but after casting about the internet for gruesome details, it appears that it is more frequent for humans
      Message 2 of 11 , Mar 14, 2004
        the birds reportedly fly into an occasional turbine, but after casting
        about the internet for gruesome details, it appears that it is more
        frequent for humans to ride bicycles into cars. I believe the general
        opinion is similar to the one i found at
        http://broadcastengineering.com/ar/broadcasting_broadcast_meets_bufflehead/
        once i filtered out the appearant silliness.

        I was motivated to post by frustration over the political dig about
        OPEC, but i feel better now and it is probably just as well that I
        don't mention it anyway.

        here's a question - why isn't the cost of reprocessing nuclear waste
        forced upon those processing it, rather than forcing the earth in
        general to absorb nuclear waste? I may have some things wrong here so
        if anyone has a tiny bit of information (i can only retain so much) I
        am supposing from my limited information "cache":
        1. nuclear energy generates waste that is indicated as a Blue 4 on the
        Hazardous Material Information Symbol, which indicates a lethal and
        chronic threat to living organisms.
        2. nuclear fuel is mined and processed, and when used/spent can be
        reprocessed to the prior natural state (still radioactive, but not as
        lethal.); BUT, it is not.
        3. it does not make sense to generate a commitment of real estate that
        will be a legacy of liability, and arguably national stupidity and greed.

        if nuclear waste had to be reprocessed to it's original state, which I
        may be under the mistaken impression that it can/is not, that expense
        would make other forms of power generation a great deal more
        appealling and viable to business. in other words - if we (yes, us)
        can't dump the expense in the Yucca mountains, AND it cost's more
        because of that fact, maybe Renewable Energy can be more attractive.

        and the reason i would like to see nuclear energy removed from the
        equation of mass consumption is that there are people that make
        decisions for this country that say "hydrogen fuel is clean and
        environmentally sound". Then the gathering that worked on the
        logistics of hydrogen fuel cell and submitted a report to the
        taxpayers and gov't went on to say that nuclear power was a most
        desirable method of production. or maybe even use oil systems already
        in use. the logic may be somewhat abridged, but it seems to me that
        generating clean fuel without expecting to change the manufacturing
        process is short-sighted.

        I sometimes wonder about these humans.

        Terry.
        Martian wanna-be.
      • Jim & Janet
        Most of the uproar over birds vs wind turbines is focused in California. Bergy Wind Power has a vested interest in keeping the rumors about bird kills to a
        Message 3 of 11 , Mar 14, 2004
          Most of the uproar over birds vs wind turbines is focused in California.
          Bergy Wind Power has a vested interest in keeping the rumors about bird
          kills to a minimum. I suspect that's why they posted this letter on their
          www site titled: Small Wind and Birds - Audubon California Letter. It's on
          their main page at http://www.bergey.com/
          Jim Duncan

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "classified" <cowbux@...>
          To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 1:42 PM
          Subject: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming


          > the birds reportedly fly into an occasional turbine, but after casting
          > about the internet for gruesome details, it appears that it is more
          > frequent for humans to ride bicycles into cars. I believe the general
          > opinion is similar to the one i found at
          >
          http://broadcastengineering.com/ar/broadcasting_broadcast_meets_bufflehead/
          > once i filtered out the appearant silliness.
          >
          > I was motivated to post by frustration over the political dig about
          > OPEC, but i feel better now and it is probably just as well that I
          > don't mention it anyway.
          >
          > here's a question - why isn't the cost of reprocessing nuclear waste
          > forced upon those processing it, rather than forcing the earth in
          > general to absorb nuclear waste? I may have some things wrong here so
          > if anyone has a tiny bit of information (i can only retain so much) I
          > am supposing from my limited information "cache":
          > 1. nuclear energy generates waste that is indicated as a Blue 4 on the
          > Hazardous Material Information Symbol, which indicates a lethal and
          > chronic threat to living organisms.
          > 2. nuclear fuel is mined and processed, and when used/spent can be
          > reprocessed to the prior natural state (still radioactive, but not as
          > lethal.); BUT, it is not.
          > 3. it does not make sense to generate a commitment of real estate that
          > will be a legacy of liability, and arguably national stupidity and greed.
          >
          > if nuclear waste had to be reprocessed to it's original state, which I
          > may be under the mistaken impression that it can/is not, that expense
          > would make other forms of power generation a great deal more
          > appealling and viable to business. in other words - if we (yes, us)
          > can't dump the expense in the Yucca mountains, AND it cost's more
          > because of that fact, maybe Renewable Energy can be more attractive.
          >
          > and the reason i would like to see nuclear energy removed from the
          > equation of mass consumption is that there are people that make
          > decisions for this country that say "hydrogen fuel is clean and
          > environmentally sound". Then the gathering that worked on the
          > logistics of hydrogen fuel cell and submitted a report to the
          > taxpayers and gov't went on to say that nuclear power was a most
          > desirable method of production. or maybe even use oil systems already
          > in use. the logic may be somewhat abridged, but it seems to me that
          > generating clean fuel without expecting to change the manufacturing
          > process is short-sighted.
          >
          > I sometimes wonder about these humans.
          >
          > Terry.
          > Martian wanna-be.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Andy
          In the Feb. issue of Scientific American they had an article about bats being hit by wind turbine blades.
          Message 4 of 11 , Mar 15, 2004
            In the Feb. issue of Scientific American they had an article about bats
            being hit by wind turbine blades.

            http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?SID=mail&articleID=000EB932-D3E2-1FF8-90AE8
            3414B7F0000&chanID=sa006

            And then if that struggle to get alternative energy sources on line isn't
            enough, you also have to fight city hall. I found this next story in the
            San Antonio Express and News this weekend while visiting my parents.

            http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/texas/stories/MYSA14.05B.solar_stymie_0314.
            628270c2.html

            Andy

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Jim & Janet [mailto:jhd1@...]
            Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 3:07 PM
            To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming

            Most of the uproar over birds vs wind turbines is focused in California.
            Bergy Wind Power has a vested interest in keeping the rumors about bird
            kills to a minimum. I suspect that's why they posted this letter on their
            www site titled: Small Wind and Birds - Audubon California Letter. It's on
            their main page at http://www.bergey.com/
            Jim Duncan

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "classified" <cowbux@...>
            To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 1:42 PM
            Subject: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming


            > the birds reportedly fly into an occasional turbine, but after casting
            > about the internet for gruesome details, it appears that it is more
            > frequent for humans to ride bicycles into cars. I believe the general
            > opinion is similar to the one i found at
            >
            http://broadcastengineering.com/ar/broadcasting_broadcast_meets_bufflehead/
            > once i filtered out the appearant silliness.
            >
            > I was motivated to post by frustration over the political dig about
            > OPEC, but i feel better now and it is probably just as well that I
            > don't mention it anyway.
            >
            > here's a question - why isn't the cost of reprocessing nuclear waste
            > forced upon those processing it, rather than forcing the earth in
            > general to absorb nuclear waste? I may have some things wrong here so
            > if anyone has a tiny bit of information (i can only retain so much) I
            > am supposing from my limited information "cache":
            > 1. nuclear energy generates waste that is indicated as a Blue 4 on the
            > Hazardous Material Information Symbol, which indicates a lethal and
            > chronic threat to living organisms.
            > 2. nuclear fuel is mined and processed, and when used/spent can be
            > reprocessed to the prior natural state (still radioactive, but not as
            > lethal.); BUT, it is not.
            > 3. it does not make sense to generate a commitment of real estate that
            > will be a legacy of liability, and arguably national stupidity and greed.
            >
            > if nuclear waste had to be reprocessed to it's original state, which I
            > may be under the mistaken impression that it can/is not, that expense
            > would make other forms of power generation a great deal more
            > appealling and viable to business. in other words - if we (yes, us)
            > can't dump the expense in the Yucca mountains, AND it cost's more
            > because of that fact, maybe Renewable Energy can be more attractive.
            >
            > and the reason i would like to see nuclear energy removed from the
            > equation of mass consumption is that there are people that make
            > decisions for this country that say "hydrogen fuel is clean and
            > environmentally sound". Then the gathering that worked on the
            > logistics of hydrogen fuel cell and submitted a report to the
            > taxpayers and gov't went on to say that nuclear power was a most
            > desirable method of production. or maybe even use oil systems already
            > in use. the logic may be somewhat abridged, but it seems to me that
            > generating clean fuel without expecting to change the manufacturing
            > process is short-sighted.
            >
            > I sometimes wonder about these humans.
            >
            > Terry.
            > Martian wanna-be.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >






            Yahoo! Groups Links
          • Andy
            Opps, sorry about the links. Apparently it didn t like them that long. You will need to copy both lines on each link by pressing the Ctrl key and drag and
            Message 5 of 11 , Mar 15, 2004
              Opps, sorry about the links. Apparently it didn't like them that long. You
              will need to copy "both" lines on each link by pressing the Ctrl key and
              drag and copy the link and then paste it into your browser.

              Andy

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Andy [mailto:andy@...]
              Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 10:34 AM
              To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming

              In the Feb. issue of Scientific American they had an article about bats
              being hit by wind turbine blades.

              http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?SID=mail&articleID=000EB932-D3E2-1FF8-90AE8
              3414B7F0000&chanID=sa006

              And then if that struggle to get alternative energy sources on line isn't
              enough, you also have to fight city hall. I found this next story in the
              San Antonio Express and News this weekend while visiting my parents.

              http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/texas/stories/MYSA14.05B.solar_stymie_0314.
              628270c2.html

              Andy

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Jim & Janet [mailto:jhd1@...]
              Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 3:07 PM
              To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming

              Most of the uproar over birds vs wind turbines is focused in California.
              Bergy Wind Power has a vested interest in keeping the rumors about bird
              kills to a minimum. I suspect that's why they posted this letter on their
              www site titled: Small Wind and Birds - Audubon California Letter. It's on
              their main page at http://www.bergey.com/
              Jim Duncan

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "classified" <cowbux@...>
              To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 1:42 PM
              Subject: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming


              > the birds reportedly fly into an occasional turbine, but after casting
              > about the internet for gruesome details, it appears that it is more
              > frequent for humans to ride bicycles into cars. I believe the general
              > opinion is similar to the one i found at
              >
              http://broadcastengineering.com/ar/broadcasting_broadcast_meets_bufflehead/
              > once i filtered out the appearant silliness.
              >
              > I was motivated to post by frustration over the political dig about
              > OPEC, but i feel better now and it is probably just as well that I
              > don't mention it anyway.
              >
              > here's a question - why isn't the cost of reprocessing nuclear waste
              > forced upon those processing it, rather than forcing the earth in
              > general to absorb nuclear waste? I may have some things wrong here so
              > if anyone has a tiny bit of information (i can only retain so much) I
              > am supposing from my limited information "cache":
              > 1. nuclear energy generates waste that is indicated as a Blue 4 on the
              > Hazardous Material Information Symbol, which indicates a lethal and
              > chronic threat to living organisms.
              > 2. nuclear fuel is mined and processed, and when used/spent can be
              > reprocessed to the prior natural state (still radioactive, but not as
              > lethal.); BUT, it is not.
              > 3. it does not make sense to generate a commitment of real estate that
              > will be a legacy of liability, and arguably national stupidity and greed.
              >
              > if nuclear waste had to be reprocessed to it's original state, which I
              > may be under the mistaken impression that it can/is not, that expense
              > would make other forms of power generation a great deal more
              > appealling and viable to business. in other words - if we (yes, us)
              > can't dump the expense in the Yucca mountains, AND it cost's more
              > because of that fact, maybe Renewable Energy can be more attractive.
              >
              > and the reason i would like to see nuclear energy removed from the
              > equation of mass consumption is that there are people that make
              > decisions for this country that say "hydrogen fuel is clean and
              > environmentally sound". Then the gathering that worked on the
              > logistics of hydrogen fuel cell and submitted a report to the
              > taxpayers and gov't went on to say that nuclear power was a most
              > desirable method of production. or maybe even use oil systems already
              > in use. the logic may be somewhat abridged, but it seems to me that
              > generating clean fuel without expecting to change the manufacturing
              > process is short-sighted.
              >
              > I sometimes wonder about these humans.
              >
              > Terry.
              > Martian wanna-be.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >






              Yahoo! Groups Links








              Yahoo! Groups Links
            • C.C. Foster
              If allegators can adapt from prehistoric times to the space age, bats and birds should be able to adapt to windmills withour loosing too many species. Birds
              Message 6 of 11 , Mar 16, 2004
                If allegators can adapt from prehistoric times to the space age, bats and
                birds should be able to adapt to windmills withour loosing too many species.
                Birds and bats flying into windmills seems to be an imaganary issue.

                <html><div><FONT face="Lucida Handwriting, Cursive">Claude
                Foster</FONT></div></html>




                >From: "Andy" <andy@...>
                >Reply-To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                >To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
                >Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming
                >Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:38:56 -0600
                >
                >Opps, sorry about the links. Apparently it didn't like them that long.
                >You
                >will need to copy "both" lines on each link by pressing the Ctrl key and
                >drag and copy the link and then paste it into your browser.
                >
                >Andy
                >
                >-----Original Message-----
                >From: Andy [mailto:andy@...]
                >Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 10:34 AM
                >To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                >Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming
                >
                >In the Feb. issue of Scientific American they had an article about bats
                >being hit by wind turbine blades.
                >
                >http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?SID=mail&articleID=000EB932-D3E2-1FF8-90AE8
                >3414B7F0000&chanID=sa006
                >
                >And then if that struggle to get alternative energy sources on line isn't
                >enough, you also have to fight city hall. I found this next story in the
                >San Antonio Express and News this weekend while visiting my parents.
                >
                >http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/texas/stories/MYSA14.05B.solar_stymie_0314.
                >628270c2.html
                >
                >Andy
                >
                >-----Original Message-----
                >From: Jim & Janet [mailto:jhd1@...]
                >Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 3:07 PM
                >To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                >Subject: Re: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming
                >
                >Most of the uproar over birds vs wind turbines is focused in California.
                >Bergy Wind Power has a vested interest in keeping the rumors about bird
                >kills to a minimum. I suspect that's why they posted this letter on their
                >www site titled: Small Wind and Birds - Audubon California Letter. It's on
                >their main page at http://www.bergey.com/
                >Jim Duncan
                >
                >----- Original Message -----
                >From: "classified" <cowbux@...>
                >To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
                >Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 1:42 PM
                >Subject: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming
                >
                >
                > > the birds reportedly fly into an occasional turbine, but after casting
                > > about the internet for gruesome details, it appears that it is more
                > > frequent for humans to ride bicycles into cars. I believe the general
                > > opinion is similar to the one i found at
                > >
                >http://broadcastengineering.com/ar/broadcasting_broadcast_meets_bufflehead/
                > > once i filtered out the appearant silliness.
                > >
                > > I was motivated to post by frustration over the political dig about
                > > OPEC, but i feel better now and it is probably just as well that I
                > > don't mention it anyway.
                > >
                > > here's a question - why isn't the cost of reprocessing nuclear waste
                > > forced upon those processing it, rather than forcing the earth in
                > > general to absorb nuclear waste? I may have some things wrong here so
                > > if anyone has a tiny bit of information (i can only retain so much) I
                > > am supposing from my limited information "cache":
                > > 1. nuclear energy generates waste that is indicated as a Blue 4 on the
                > > Hazardous Material Information Symbol, which indicates a lethal and
                > > chronic threat to living organisms.
                > > 2. nuclear fuel is mined and processed, and when used/spent can be
                > > reprocessed to the prior natural state (still radioactive, but not as
                > > lethal.); BUT, it is not.
                > > 3. it does not make sense to generate a commitment of real estate that
                > > will be a legacy of liability, and arguably national stupidity and
                >greed.
                > >
                > > if nuclear waste had to be reprocessed to it's original state, which I
                > > may be under the mistaken impression that it can/is not, that expense
                > > would make other forms of power generation a great deal more
                > > appealling and viable to business. in other words - if we (yes, us)
                > > can't dump the expense in the Yucca mountains, AND it cost's more
                > > because of that fact, maybe Renewable Energy can be more attractive.
                > >
                > > and the reason i would like to see nuclear energy removed from the
                > > equation of mass consumption is that there are people that make
                > > decisions for this country that say "hydrogen fuel is clean and
                > > environmentally sound". Then the gathering that worked on the
                > > logistics of hydrogen fuel cell and submitted a report to the
                > > taxpayers and gov't went on to say that nuclear power was a most
                > > desirable method of production. or maybe even use oil systems already
                > > in use. the logic may be somewhat abridged, but it seems to me that
                > > generating clean fuel without expecting to change the manufacturing
                > > process is short-sighted.
                > >
                > > I sometimes wonder about these humans.
                > >
                > > Terry.
                > > Martian wanna-be.
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >

                _________________________________________________________________
                FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar � get it now!
                http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
              • Richard D. Kelley
                Only the dumb birds will die. ... From: C.C. Foster [SMTP:c_c_foster@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 8:43 AM To: hreg@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE:
                Message 7 of 11 , Mar 16, 2004
                  Only the dumb birds will die.


                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: C.C. Foster [SMTP:c_c_foster@...]
                  Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 8:43 AM
                  To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming

                  If allegators can adapt from prehistoric times to the space age, bats and
                  birds should be able to adapt to windmills withour loosing too many species.
                  Birds and bats flying into windmills seems to be an imaganary issue.

                  <html><div><FONT face="Lucida Handwriting, Cursive">Claude
                  Foster</FONT></div></html>




                  >From: "Andy" <andy@...>
                  >Reply-To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                  >To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
                  >Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming
                  >Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:38:56 -0600
                  >
                  >Opps, sorry about the links. Apparently it didn't like them that long.
                  >You
                  >will need to copy "both" lines on each link by pressing the Ctrl key and
                  >drag and copy the link and then paste it into your browser.
                  >
                  >Andy
                  >
                  >-----Original Message-----
                  >From: Andy [mailto:andy@...]
                  >Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 10:34 AM
                  >To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                  >Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming
                  >
                  >In the Feb. issue of Scientific American they had an article about bats
                  >being hit by wind turbine blades.
                  >
                  >http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?SID=mail&articleID=000EB932-D3E2-1FF8-90AE8
                  >3414B7F0000&chanID=sa006
                  >
                  >And then if that struggle to get alternative energy sources on line isn't
                  >enough, you also have to fight city hall. I found this next story in the
                  >San Antonio Express and News this weekend while visiting my parents.
                  >
                  >http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/texas/stories/MYSA14.05B.solar_stymie_0314.
                  >628270c2.html
                  >
                  >Andy
                  >
                  >-----Original Message-----
                  >From: Jim & Janet [mailto:jhd1@...]
                  >Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 3:07 PM
                  >To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                  >Subject: Re: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming
                  >
                  >Most of the uproar over birds vs wind turbines is focused in California.
                  >Bergy Wind Power has a vested interest in keeping the rumors about bird
                  >kills to a minimum. I suspect that's why they posted this letter on their
                  >www site titled: Small Wind and Birds - Audubon California Letter. It's on
                  >their main page at http://www.bergey.com/
                  >Jim Duncan
                  >
                  >----- Original Message -----
                  >From: "classified" <cowbux@...>
                  >To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
                  >Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 1:42 PM
                  >Subject: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming
                  >
                  >
                  > > the birds reportedly fly into an occasional turbine, but after casting
                  > > about the internet for gruesome details, it appears that it is more
                  > > frequent for humans to ride bicycles into cars. I believe the general
                  > > opinion is similar to the one i found at
                  > >
                  >http://broadcastengineering.com/ar/broadcasting_broadcast_meets_bufflehead/
                  > > once i filtered out the appearant silliness.
                  > >
                  > > I was motivated to post by frustration over the political dig about
                  > > OPEC, but i feel better now and it is probably just as well that I
                  > > don't mention it anyway.
                  > >
                  > > here's a question - why isn't the cost of reprocessing nuclear waste
                  > > forced upon those processing it, rather than forcing the earth in
                  > > general to absorb nuclear waste? I may have some things wrong here so
                  > > if anyone has a tiny bit of information (i can only retain so much) I
                  > > am supposing from my limited information "cache":
                  > > 1. nuclear energy generates waste that is indicated as a Blue 4 on the
                  > > Hazardous Material Information Symbol, which indicates a lethal and
                  > > chronic threat to living organisms.
                  > > 2. nuclear fuel is mined and processed, and when used/spent can be
                  > > reprocessed to the prior natural state (still radioactive, but not as
                  > > lethal.); BUT, it is not.
                  > > 3. it does not make sense to generate a commitment of real estate that
                  > > will be a legacy of liability, and arguably national stupidity and
                  >greed.
                  > >
                  > > if nuclear waste had to be reprocessed to it's original state, which I
                  > > may be under the mistaken impression that it can/is not, that expense
                  > > would make other forms of power generation a great deal more
                  > > appealling and viable to business. in other words - if we (yes, us)
                  > > can't dump the expense in the Yucca mountains, AND it cost's more
                  > > because of that fact, maybe Renewable Energy can be more attractive.
                  > >
                  > > and the reason i would like to see nuclear energy removed from the
                  > > equation of mass consumption is that there are people that make
                  > > decisions for this country that say "hydrogen fuel is clean and
                  > > environmentally sound". Then the gathering that worked on the
                  > > logistics of hydrogen fuel cell and submitted a report to the
                  > > taxpayers and gov't went on to say that nuclear power was a most
                  > > desirable method of production. or maybe even use oil systems already
                  > > in use. the logic may be somewhat abridged, but it seems to me that
                  > > generating clean fuel without expecting to change the manufacturing
                  > > process is short-sighted.
                  > >
                  > > I sometimes wonder about these humans.
                  > >
                  > > Terry.
                  > > Martian wanna-be.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >

                  _________________________________________________________________
                  FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
                  http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/




                  Yahoo! Groups Links
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.