Subject:
|
Re: Unexplained power outages in New York, Toronto, and other cities
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:06:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
301 times
|
| |
|
|
[snip]
> > The solar panels that are illegal for me to use on my
> > house, if used by everyone, would produce enough excess energy to power the
> > cites.
>
> No they wouldn't, since all solar powered systems are pretty much unreliable.
Not the ones that are illegal for me to purchase. They are based on the same
technology NASA uses for its satellites.
[snip]
> > My main problem is that
> > I can not legally do this on my own nor can anyone else on a voluntary basis.
> > WTF!?
>
> Any official explanation?
Wish I knew. I do know that where I live the power company is required to buy
back any power you generate but do not use. However pretty much all practical
ways of generating power are illegal. (I think water wheels are allowed if you
happen to have a river handy. Talk about unreliable.)
[snip]
> > Now if we wanted to use centralized power generation we should be building
> > Breeder Nuclear Reactors. They are impossible to meltdown,
>
> Not really, no. They are unlikely to melt down... which is not the same.
They tested this on the prototype. They evacutated the small town that the
reactor was powering and shut off all the coolant and backup coolant. The
reactor through the simple process of obeying the laws of physics shut itself
down.
> Now think of something: they require more cooling-water than conventional
> reactors. Look at what's happening in France, Germany, Italy now, and risk
> saying breeder reactors could operate under those conditions.
>
> > leave no nuclear
> > waste,
>
> They do leave toxic waste, in this case sodium:
> http://www.fpcj.jp/e/shiryo/jb/0308.html
Sodium is actually fairly easy to neutralize. As opposed to the conventional
nuclear plants, they are building a huge vault to contain the waste for 10,000
years.
>
> > and we could power the entire planet for 500 years on just the urainium
> > we have mined now
>
> You're of course overlooking the fact that other countries have chosen to reduce
> consumption instead of going nuclear. Think Sweeden, Germany, Netherlands... the
> list goes on. In your own country there are people who aren't too fond of
> nuclear, plus there is Three Mile Island.
>
> > It was tested and all of the
> > above proven in the midwest by a Prototype power plant according to a PBS
> > special I watched. The offical reason that the project was discontinued was that
> > one of the breakdown stages of the fuel is plutonium that could be used in
> > weapons.
>
> Honest Mike, these powerplants aren't that much different from what we have now.
> Just a tad bit more efficient.
Uh... You mean quite a bit more efficent and they eliminate the main undesirable
features of a conventional plant.
>
> > Of course I can read between the lines and see that the real reason is
> > that 40 percent of domestic oil consuption is used for power generation (which
> > is also one of the largest sources of pollution in the US) and that would screw
> > over the oil corporations that make campain contributions.
>
> What can I say? You've voted the man in, now deal with it.
I didn't vote for Clinton. Of course I know anybody else would have done the
same thing. All hail oil.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
27 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
