]
- Original Message -
From: Ken Riznyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] How would any of you answer this one?
Hakan,
Your argument that conservation would eliminate the
need for building nuclear power has merit
There's so much about all this in the list archives, it's not as if
they're exactly new questions. So please, go ahead and discuss it
again if you wish, no problem, but do a bit of delving, eh? Otherwise
it'll mostly just go round and round in the same old circle.
The archives contains more
Ken,
You get the same number of sun hours in PA as we do in OH. It's more a
matter of degree of income and degree of commitment. We're not there yet
either and probably never will be if we have to pay someone to install a
system rather than do it ourselves. That more than doubles the cost per
--- Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ken,
Are you saying that the refining of uranium and
nuclear power in general
does not contribute to greenhouse gases?
No, my point was that arguing that coal was used in
its production was spurious since everthing uses
fossil fuel to some
Hakan,
Your argument that conservation would eliminate the
need for building nuclear power has merit but does not
speak to the use of fossil fuel as a reason to scrap
nuclear.
The problem is that many people do not care to
conserve. Look at the facts - Bush's energy plan is
simply to drill for
A, But Ken, you used the term ludicrous, although you did qualify
the degree with the words a bit. By all accounts, that still generally
means the thought having no merit. And if we discount one very energy
intensive endeavor so readily, then we might as well just all throw our
hands up in
We have basically two arguments against nuclear power
in the referenced article. 1) It is a fallicy that
production of nuclear energy does not contribute to
greenhouse gases. 2) Nuclear energy takes so much
investment energy to get started that it will take 18
years before there is a net gain in
The argument that coal is used in the production of
uranium therefore nuclear power contributes to green
house gases is a bit ludicrous. If we wanted to
eliminate the use of coal we would essentially have to
do nothing at all. The automobile engine that you are
running your biodiesel in was
Ken,
Are you saying that the refining of uranium and nuclear power in general
does not contribute to greenhouse gases?
Seems as if you glossed over this part:
Indeed, a nuclear
power plant must operate for 18 years before
producing one net calorie of energy.
How many years must a
Ken,
I do not find it ludicrous at all. 25 to 50% saving of
energy nullifies the need to build nuclear power
stations. The potential saving of energy, without
noticeable effect on living standard is 60 to 70%,
that is the size of the energy waste.
Considering the 5 to 10 years it take to build
Ken wrote,
"Myself I have vowed to stop my bathroom use..."
DON'T DO THAT!
You'll be sorry.
:-)
Mike
Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ken,I do not find it ludicrous at all. 25 to 50% saving ofenergy nullifies the need to build nuclear powerstations. The potential saving of energy,
WarnqvistAGERATEC AB
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+ 46 554 201 89+46 70 499 38 45
- Original Message -
From:
bmolloy
To: Biofuel
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 4:24
AM
Subject: [Biofuel] How would any of you
answer this one?
Hi Michael,
Re your quote from
Hi Todd
Hey Keith,
Perhaps this bit of BS wasn't worth acknowledging:
Nahhh, it was. I was just thinking about the normal 250 word
limit on letters to editors.
Ulp... Is the eight years since I last worked for a newspaper a good
enough excuse, d'you think? LOL! I've said it before
Have always wondered about the caution expressedagainst milk products
to minimize the personal risk of prostate cancer. The same risk from
prostate cancer has also been associated with red meat. And, there
are broader implications.
Reasonfor thisrisk seemsobvious from the
waysignificant
14 matches
Mail list logo
