|
Posted by David Combs on May 26, 2008, 5:10 pm
> don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>
...
>
>Our air and water are cleaner than they have EVER been, yet, during that
Well, things have indeed gotten much better. For instance this
surface coal-mining on hilltops, all the "tailings" being
shoved down into the valleys.
Thank god for Bush and Cheney's regulations that those sites have
to be remediated back to original beauty and cleanliness "+". And note
the by now hundred of examples of the good-citizen coal companies transporting
all those tailings from way down in the valleys back up to where
they came from, then sealed in by the most modern technology so no
leaks guaranteed for the next 20 million years, and then schools
and hospitals and auditoriums built above it all, beautiful
landscaping, lucious green grass, playgrounds and swimming pools
for the valley town's kids, really nice!
>same time, we've been growing and prospering as a society. We've
I thought it was common knowledge that *median*-income, in "real"
terms, peaked in the early 70's, and it's been downhill ever
since.
>learned from our mistakes in the past. When we have an oil spill, it's
Has Exxon ever paid even 50-cents for cleanup for the Exxon-Valdez oil spill?
(Interesting investigative-reporter book: "the best democracy money
can buy", by greg palast. 10 or 15 chapters, each on a separate
(paid for) investigation do by him (palast: American, reports for or at
least has shows on BBC Newsnight. (Of course, you'll never see them
*here*!). Anyway, captain was drunk, in bed, (I think that's what he
found), but far, far worse was that the perfectly-functioning radar was turned
OFF
that night -- hell, maybe always! Betcha you didn't see *that* in the newspapers
or on the TV!))
>often reported by the gallon instead of the barrel to prop-up the all
>important NUMBER.
>
>A modern oil drilling operation has a surprisingly small footprint.
>When they are done at that location, they restore the site to
>before-drilling conditions.
>
>We need to build more oil refineries domestically then go get more of
>OUR OWN oil. This would certainly slow the RISE in the price of
>gasoline.
What I hear is that there simply isn't that much more around here (USA) --
that the biggest such find is almost guaranteed to be smaller than Alaska
(which apparantely just isn't all that big.)
Then there's oil from "oil shale", I understand, like up in Canada, and there's
supposed to be *lots* of it, the only problem being that's it's (apparantely)
BY FAR the "dirtiest" type, with (maybe) equiv effect on the atmosphere, etc.
>We also need to start building more nuclear-powered, electricity
>generating stations.
Well, I myself live maybe 10 miles north of "the Bronx", and just 20 or 30 miles
northwest of me, right there on the Hudson river, there's two (or is
it three?) of them.
They expire in just a while (5 years?), are already leaking Tritium
into the drinking water, have already had some close calls to Armaagheddon
(sp?), and guess what -- they're trying to get a 30 year extension!
And with the kind of money they have for "lobbying" (ie bribes),
they'll probably get it.
Insane.
If you're gonna build the things, at least do it out in Nevada or the
Dakotas where if something blows you don't throw the entire nation info
a bottomless depression from having to abandon the entire East Coast
from D.C. to Boston.
>No thanks to prohibitive legislative and
>environmental enactments, it takes YEARS just to do the paperwork for a
>new nuke. That needs to be whittled-down to a couple of years at most.
>
>It's only 2008 and we apparently can't WAIT to forget about 9/11. (2001
>for those of you that forgot.)
That too. Had Osama been a bit smarter, he'd of have those planes dive
into the spent-fuel ponds right there next to those nuclear plants.
>Next March 28, it will be thirty YEARS since the TMI2 (Three Mile Island
>Unit 2) "accident" and we can apparently NEVER forget.
And how long ago was Chernoble (sp?)? And the effect of that on having
to abandon a huge amount of land?
And what about the wind-effect, carrying the radiation clear across western
Europe? And its food-supply?
>Which event killed more people?
>
>Carbon footprint? When compared to a nuclear power station, an
>equivalent coal-fired operation has a *HUGE* footprint. It's fuel is
>delivered 2-3 times a week by the >100-car TRAINLOAD. It adds to the
>MOUNTAIN of coal that a station keeps on hand.
>
>Omaha has such an operation along the Nebraska side of the Missouri
>river. The railroad tracks bisect the city.
>
>We also benefit from Fort Calhoun (nuclear) Generating Station somewhat
>further north upriver from OPPD's North Omaha (coal-fired) Station.
>
>My utility is currently building a second, coal-fired unit outside
>Nebraska City - about 60 miles south of Omaha along the Missouri river.
>
>I would LOVE another nuke.
>But, I digress. Back to Thomas Alva Edison's most earth-changing
>invention: The light bulb.
>
>The federal mandate to phase-out the common incandescent lamp is an
>unconstitutional encroachment on the private sector.
>
>Banning ourselves (huh?) from harvesting huge fuel resources within our
>own lands is absurd at least. Considering the price of gas, it's become
>stupid, too.
>
>We really need to grow a BRAIN and a backbone about energy: The BRAIN
>to build it (refinery, drill site or nuke power station) and the
>BACKBONE to OVERCOME all the hand-wringing and shrieks of anguish from
>the crybaby left while it happens - clean, safe and quite overdue.
Nah, what we really need to do is to "off" those Chinese and Indians
who're (now or very soon will be) taking all our oil!
Cheers!
David
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap