XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.politics.economics, alt.law-enforcement   
   XPost: alt.prisons, alt.revisionism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.conspiracy, alt.politics.immigration, alt.true-crime   
   XPost: alt.politics.guns, misc.survivalism, soc.culture.usa   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: davidjhughes.tx@netzero.com   
      
   On 1/29/2015 6:20 PM, Keeley Crawford wrote:   
   > In article ,   
   >   BeamMeUpScotty   
   >      EPA.ObamaCare.gov> wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 1/29/2015 2:53 PM, David J. Hughes wrote:   
   >>> On 1/29/2015 1:16 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:   
   >>>> On 1/29/2015 2:05 PM, Keeley Crawford wrote:   
   >>>>> In article ,   
   >>>>>    BeamMeUpScotty   
   >>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> And solar/wind use so much fossil fuel to build the Solar/wind   
   >>>>>>>>>> products and maintain them that there is little or no shrinkage   
   >>>>>>>>>> in the   
   >>>>>>>>>> carbon footprint.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> but of course those coal/gas/nuke plants require so much less fossil   
   >>>>>>>>> fuel to build, correct?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> In comparison to the fuel they burn long term, they are more   
   >>>>>>>> efficient,   
   >>>>>>>> and in comparison to the Co2 they produce there is little difference.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> complete and utter bullshit. nukes produce so much more Co2...takes an   
   >>>>>>> awful lot of materials (more than any other type of plant) to build   
   >>>>>>> them   
   >>>>>>> and that doesn't include the materials to build the fuel processing   
   >>>>>>> plants all of which generate Co2   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> And the nuclear plants produce a thousand to a million times the Co2   
   >>>>>> free energy of a windmill... over their lifetime and the Nuclear plant   
   >>>>>> will out live the windmill.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> which is then produced when you "safely" dismantle the plant, build a   
   >>>>> disposal site that can safely take radioactive waste and provide the   
   >>>>> staffing and transportation to guard it   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Fill it with concrete and bury it like a trash dump.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>> of course by your standard, a PV could last almost indefinitely and   
   >>>>>>> reduce Co2 every hour it works   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> When one PV cell fails the panel is all but trash.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> the cells are quite often in parallel so that isn't true, but like   
   >>>>> steel, the components can be repaired or recycled...silicon has a very   
   >>>>> long lifetime   
   >>>>   
   >>>> that also makes more Co2 from fossil energy.   
   >>>   
   >>> Or simply build the Solar cell manufacturing and recycling facilities in   
   >>> areas that use hydroelectric power.   
   >>   
   >> The metal smelting and the electronics aren't going to be done under the   
   >> same roof. Then you have to transport and install them and that takes   
   >> fossil fuel, the workers also need fossil fuel to get to work.   
   >   
   >   
   > just like at the steel and coal plants   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Mining the ore to make the metals is fossil fuel intensive.   
   >   
   > but mining coal isn't?   
   >   
   >>   
   >> If all the various production sites were on the grid and the grid were   
   >> 100% solar/wind powered you might get to around 50/50 wind/fossil but   
   >> that's just never going to happen.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> Zero fossil fuel use.   
   >>   
   >>> Use the solar cells to supplement the hydroelectric grid with the   
   >>> hydroelectric balancing the supply/demand.   
   >>> Zero fossil fuel use.   
   >>   
   >> That works but there's NOT enough hydro.   
   >>   
   >> Even using wind to pump the water back up to the lake for the hydro to   
   >> reuse it (A two lake endless circulation pumping) won't increase   
   >> capacity and flatten the rise and fall from direct solar/wind   
   >> fluctuations enough to amount to more than a fart in hurricane.   
   >>   
   >> Go look at the amount of electric a single full sized nuclear reactor   
   >> produces and it does that at a steady rate 24/7.   
   >   
   >   
   > and total all the CO2 produced to build, secure and operate it, not only   
   > for the 10 years to build it, the maintenance, but the decommissioning   
   > and storage...storage that will need to be protected for longer than   
   > we've had written language   
      
   Pack the high end radioactive waste into the uranium mines they came   
   from in the first place.  Flood the mine with a hot slurry of asphalt   
   and crushed limestone to keep out water, while also being an excellent   
   barrier to alpha, beta and gamma radiation as well as being a neutron   
   absorber.   
   Being high end wastes, they will decay much faster than Uranium.  After   
   100 years, they will be far less radioactive than the uranium nature put   
   there.   
      
   Scientists have known how to deal with this for 75 years, the problem   
   has always been politicians.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)