Well when you put it THAT way I have to agree ;) It's hard to justify anything that is harmful if there is a better alternative. The problem is it is better for those who don't stand to gain from the unhealthy stuff. I'm glad to see a lot of wind turbines going into southern Ontario these days.
Joe Zeke Yewdall wrote: > >are you saying they raise the rates more than what is justified? > > Maybe not more than is justified to pay for the nuclear plants, but is > paying for nuclear plants at all justified since they cost so much more > than other options. > > Oddly enough, the power company here just made a big show of trying to > defend us from a 1% price increase due to renewable energy requirements > foisted on them by the "environmentalists", but a few months later, > asked for an 11% price increase because natural gas prices went up. To > claim that the 11% increase is justified because fuel costs went up sort > of misses the point that it could have been at least partially avoided > by having a bit more wind power on the grid..... > > On 6/27/06, *Joe Street* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > Hi Jeff; > > First let me say I am not a nuclear proponent. Quite the opposite. But > I read your post and I thought, ok if they raise the rates because of > the cost for comissioning and decommissioning, then how is it that they > make more money? I am not arguing that the rates go up. Here in Ontario > where we have reactors that can't be kept online due to hydrogen > embrittlment of the fuel rods and other problems(candu reactors) the > huge debts incurred by the reactors are painful in what it is costing > us. Terrible technology no matter how you look at it. But are you saying > they raise the rates more than what is justified? Can you substantiate > this? I'm interested. > > Joe > > Jeff Lyles wrote: > > > I have work at nuclear plants before. There are not design to > reduce energy > > consumption. They are design to make money for the power > companies. They do > > this as follows. First, they raise electric rates to be able to > pay for the > > construction of the plant. It takes an average of 20 years to pay > for the > > construction of the plant. Second, when they close the plant > down, they > > raise the electric rates again to pay for the decommissioning of > the plant. > > In between those times, they do as little as maintenance work as > possible so > > that they can keep the plant online as much as possible. So, in > the end, you > > close down the plant because the amount of work, including > maintenance, is > > so much that it is not cost effective to do it. In the end, > nuclear plants > > make the power company money by giving them a good reason to > raise their > > electric rates and fail to show how long term dependence upon > nuclear plants > > can lower and keep rates stabilized. > > > > One case in point in Trojan Nuclear Plant. It was close down and > > decommission because of the amount of work that needed to be done > on it, > > including replacing the steam generators. Trojan operated for > around 30 > > years, give or take. If nuclear plants were the solution to the > problem, > > then the nuclear plants built 30 years ago would be pointed to as > shining > > examples of why we need nuclear power. But, instead, the nuclear > industry is > > not wanting the public to think or go see how they are doing. > There is a > > very good reason for this. As the saying goes, connect the dots. > > > > Jeff > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mike Weaver" < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > To: <biofuel@sustainablelists.org > <mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org>> > > Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 10:08 AM > > Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring > > > > > > > >>chem.dd, > >> > >>Have a look at what Chernobyl is like now. It's not like you > really get a > >>second chance when you screw up with nuclear. > >> > >>FWIW, I think if you had started your post with: "Here are > examples of > >>nulclear power working successfully; the problems > >>that caused Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are now solved - > here's the > >>proof: (insert proof) perhaps it merits a second look for these > reasons > >>1,2,3," you would have had a better response. You mention > >>scientific and engineering but then no examples or research. I > think you > >>set yourself up to get hammered. > >>And no, I personally don't think nuclear power is a good option, > but would > >>read a well-constructed post as to why I'm wrong. > >> > >>-Weaver > >> > >> > >>"scientific and engineering, as opposed to the politically > correct view, > >>the > >>use of nuclear energy is the solution. ( Please don't scream > Three Mile > >>Island and Chernobyl) Fission reactors will have to do until we > develop a > >>functional fusion reactor which is by its physics inherently safe. > >>Please let me know your thoughts on this." > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>jtcava wrote: > >> > >> > >>>I'm getting the idea that I wouldn't want many of the people > here on > >>>this online comunity anywhere near me when sh*t happens. > >>>It is my outlook that everybody has something to offer in a true > >>>survival situation. > >>> > >>>John > >>> > >>>Keith Addison wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>>I would think this is the ideal forum for discussing any > aspects and > >>>>>options > >>>>>for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, particularly in > terms of > >>>>>sustainability. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>>Indeed it is, as a great deal of previous discussion residing > in the > >>>>list archives will attest, covering, I'm sure, all aspects of the > >>>>issue. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>What is truly sad is closed mindedness. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>>Wouldn't you think, David, that's it's perhaps a little > closed-minded > >>>>to arrive at a mature forum such as this and just naturally assume > >>>>such an obvious subject hasn't been dealt with here before in the > >>>>last six years? I think the reason Robert would be laughing if only > >>>>it wasn't so sad is that your argument has had all the > substance shot > >>>>right out of it long ago. > >>>> > >>>>It's also a little closed-minded to to assume that it's Robert > who's > >>>>being closed-minded, apparently without checking first to see > what he > >>>>might have posted on the subject before, or even checking his > >>>>website, though he provides the url. This, eg: > >>>>http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/p5.htm > >>>>Ranger Supercharger Project > >>>> > >>>>Maybe you owe him an apology. > >>>> > >>>>I have to say the same for your views on nuclear power: > >>>> > >>>>>From an objective > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>scientific and engineering, as opposed to the politically > correct view, > >>>>>the > >>>>>use of nuclear energy is the solution. ( Please don't scream > Three Mile > >>>>>Island and Chernobyl) Fission reactors will have to do until > we develop > >>>>>a > >>>>>functional fusion reactor which is by its physics inherently safe. > >>>>>Please let me know your thoughts on this. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>>That argument has also been shot down thoroughly and many times. > >>>> > >>>>I find it a little sad the way you ascribe objections to nuclear > >>>>power to mere politically correctness. Not objective, eh, no facts? > >>>> > >>>>I suggest you go and do some reading, offlist, at the address > listed > >>>>at the end of every message you receive from the list: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 > >>>>>messages): > >>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>>When you've done that (make sure you do a thorough job), please > come > >>>>back and offer some support for your view that objections to > nuclear > >>>>power have only political correctness to support them. > >>>> > >>>>Thankyou. > >>>> > >>>>Best wishes > >>>> > >>>>Keith Addison > >>>>Journey to Forever > >>>>KYOTO Pref., Japan > >>>>http://journeytoforever.org/ <http://journeytoforever.org/> > >>>>Biofuel list owner > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>David > >>>>>----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>From: "robert and benita rabello" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > >>>>>To: <biofuel@sustainablelists.org > <mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org>> > >>>>>Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 8:33 AM > >>>>>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Worldwide oil consumption seen soaring > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>chem.dd wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>The bottom line is that the world has to go Hydrogen. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Are you SURE you want to go there in this forum? I'd be > laughing > >>>>>>if > >>>>>>your proposition wasn't so sad. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>robert luis rabello > >>>>>>"The Edge of Justice" > >>>>>>Adventure for Your Mind > >>>>>>http://www.newadventure.ca > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Ranger Supercharger Project Page > >>>>>>http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>_______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Biofuel mailing list > > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org <mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.org> > > > http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > <http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html> > > > > Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives > (50,000 messages): > > http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > <http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Biofuel mailing list > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org <mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.org> > http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 > messages): > http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Biofuel mailing list > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org > http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): > http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
