If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Now here's a cool car
|
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Now here's a cool car
"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message t... > In article >, > dgk > wrote: >> >>Right, but the question is how to best deliver people where they want >>to go with the least harmful impact on the environment. Is that a bad >>goal? > > That's not a goal at all. Taken one way, it's an unsatisfiable set of > constraints. Taken another way, it's an ambiguous one. > > If you want to both "BEST deliver people where they want to go", and > "deliver people where they want to go with the least harmful impact on > the environment", it's unsatisfiable. If you want to balance delivery > with impact on the environment, it's ambiguous. > >>Hopefully electric cars are part of the solution, and the electricity >>can be produced by a cleaner method than coal. > > Not likely. In the US, a state court just ruled that a nuke > supplying 30% of the power to New York City has to shut down because > its water output is too hot. Not a court. It was the state's Department of Environmental Conservation. > Now, it's possible to produce > electricity with a minimum of conventional pollutants, and it's even > possible to produce it with a minimum of CO2 (with a nuke). But you > can't produce electricity without heat. The standards are > impossible. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Now here's a cool car
Matthew Russotto wrote:
> Not likely. In the US, a state court just ruled that a nuke > supplying 30% of the power to New York City has to shut down because > its water output is too hot. Now, it's possible to produce > electricity with a minimum of conventional pollutants, and it's even > possible to produce it with a minimum of CO2 (with a nuke). But you > can't produce electricity without heat. The standards are > impossible. If it were possible, the greens would find some other excuse to demand shutdown. Their movement isn't really about saving the earth; it's about destroying civilization because they hate humans. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Now here's a cool car
"N8N" > wrote in message ... On Apr 8, 10:49 pm, Grumpy AuContraire > wrote: > dgk wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:35:52 -0700, "Stewart" > > > wrote: > > >> > wrote in message > ... > >>> In article >, Grumpy > >>> AuContraire > wrote: > > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> In article >, "Stewart" > >>>>> > wrote: > > >>>>>> Left wing socialist alert! > > >>>>>> And to keep it on topic.....what type of Honda do you own? > > >>>>> Nah, we socialists only drive Volvo 240s and read > >>> misc.transport.rail.americas. > >>>>> (To which I am still trying to figure out why this thread is > >>>>> posted). > > >>>> What??? > > >>>> No Prius or Smaht Kahs??? > > >>> Ha! Those are only driven by wanna-be socialists. Too much computer > >>> technology, and made by corporations. The most advanced technology > >>> allowed near the homes of true socialists are the products of the > >>> Soviet > >>> Diesel Computer Cooperative. > > >>> -- > >>> -Glennl > >>> Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam, and most e-mail > >>> sent to this address are simply lost in the vast mess. > >> I like the all electrics to reduce "carbon footprint". plug 'em in to > >> an outlet fed by coal burning power generation...... > > > Right, but the question is how to best deliver people where they want > > to go with the least harmful impact on the environment. Is that a bad > > goal? > > Nope, not a bad goal at all but... Any big advance in technology will > come from innovation from the private sector, not guv'ment mandate. It > always has and always will. Guv'ment is nothing but a giant > interference entity. > > > Hopefully electric cars are part of the solution, and the electricity > > can be produced by a cleaner method than coal. > > Sure, a hundred nuke plants would be a great intermediate solution until > new technologies can be developed. But no one wants such in "their" > backyard. Meh, I grew up with one in my backyard, or pretty close to it, and I turned out just fine. nate No you didn't, you diddle wit' 'dem Studebakers...! |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Now here's a cool car
ah wrote:
>> Nope, not a bad goal at all but... Any big advance in technology will >> come from innovation from the private sector, not guv'ment mandate. It >> always has and always will. Guv'ment is nothing but a giant >> interference entity. >> >> > Hopefully electric cars are part of the solution, and the electricity >> > can be produced by a cleaner method than coal. >> >> Sure, a hundred nuke plants would be a great intermediate solution until >> new technologies can be developed. But no one wants such in "their" >> backyard. > > Meh, I grew up with one in my backyard, or pretty close to it, and I > turned out just fine. > > nate > No you didn't, you diddle wit' 'dem Studebakers...! So that soft, green glow has been around so long it doesn't even keep you awake does it? -- .. "You show me ONE poster who says you have even one part per million of a good name, and I'll show you a sock." - Bill "the Roadie" Carton |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Now here's a cool car
ah wrote:
> > "N8N" > wrote in message > snip >> >> Sure, a hundred nuke plants would be a great intermediate solution until >> new technologies can be developed. But no one wants such in "their" >> backyard. > > Meh, I grew up with one in my backyard, or pretty close to it, and I > turned out just fine. > > nate > No you didn't, you diddle wit' 'dem Studebakers...! Yeah, but I have lotsa company! Ol' Honda Civics and Studebakers... Simple elegance.. JT |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Now here's a cool car
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:51:32 -0800, John David Galt
> wrote: >Matthew Russotto wrote: >> Not likely. In the US, a state court just ruled that a nuke >> supplying 30% of the power to New York City has to shut down because >> its water output is too hot. Now, it's possible to produce >> electricity with a minimum of conventional pollutants, and it's even >> possible to produce it with a minimum of CO2 (with a nuke). But you >> can't produce electricity without heat. The standards are >> impossible. > >If it were possible, the greens would find some other excuse to demand >shutdown. Their movement isn't really about saving the earth; it's about >destroying civilization because they hate humans. You really believe that? I think you're pretty stupid. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Now here's a cool car
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Now here's a cool car
In article >,
Glen Labah > wrote: > Actually, you can run a power plant without heating up the river. When Indian Point 2 & 3 were being planned, Con Ed wanted to build cooling towers. The environmentalists opposed them, because it would 'spoil the view'. Cooling towers aren't a bad thing, but they do have the disadvantage of drawing a bit of power - on a large plant like IP, you'd be looking at something like 20 - 40 MW per unit. That's all pumping losses (!). IIRC, Palo Verde is unique in the world for being the only nuke that's not near a river or body of water. The plant uses recycled sewage for the condensers... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cool | Tracy | VW air cooled | 4 | August 18th 08 11:37 AM |
99 SW - A/C not cool enough | Michal | Saturn | 0 | June 10th 05 03:22 AM |
This might be cool... | Shag | VW air cooled | 1 | May 19th 05 12:59 AM |
96 2.2 Dex cool or not? | Bob Urz | Technology | 6 | May 9th 05 03:07 AM |
this is cool | billybeer | VW air cooled | 0 | November 16th 04 02:01 PM |