Re: Comcast making a big sucking attempt to clean your spare cash. - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Re: Comcast making a big sucking attempt to clean your spare cash. - Ubuntu ; "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message news:48f3be15$0$17118$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net... > dennis@home wrote: > >> >> >> "Fred" wrote in message >> news:gcvpfg$9a0$1@registered.motzarella.org... >>> dennis@home wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "Fred" wrote in message >>>> news:gcv6p2$tld$1@registered.motzarella.org... >>>> >>>> >>>>> The sun burns for free. Startup ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 258

Thread: Re: Comcast making a big sucking attempt to clean your spare cash.

  1. Re: Hydrogen



    "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message
    news:48f3be15$0$17118$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> "Fred" wrote in message
    >> news:gcvpfg$9a0$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >>> dennis@home wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Fred" wrote in message
    >>>> news:gcv6p2$tld$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> The sun burns for free. Startup costs for solar power are
    >>>>> high,
    >>>>> but
    >>>>> the cells last a lifetime and keep working. Maintenance is minimal
    >>>>> and the best thing is they don't dump carbon dioxide into the
    >>>>> atmosphere. Hydrogen is a good way to store the energy.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Lookup the total solar energy delivered per sq meter of your land
    >>>> and work out if you can continue your lifestyle with only that much
    >>>> energy to use.
    >>>>
    >>> More than I could ever want.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> In the UK it would mean covering the entire land mass with solar
    >>>> cells even if they were 90% efficient.
    >>>>
    >>> Total fantasy. 5 or 6 panels could power most homes in
    >>> conjunction
    >>> with other energy technologies like geo-thermal heating and solar
    >>> heat conversion panels... passive solar heating, better insolation,
    >>> wind power, etc.

    >>
    >> So your green solution is to spend lots of carbon to save a bit each
    >> year.
    >> Just how long does it take to save more carbon than you have used to
    >> build
    >> this *new* house?

    >
    > What "carbon" is spent? Solar panels are not made of carbon, and carbon
    > does
    > not play any role in their fabrication


    Just admit that you don't have a clue, you never do as far as I can see.

    > Thermal heating has also nothing to do with "carbon". Solar heating
    > likewise.
    > Better insolation equally has nothing to do with carbon. Wind power has
    > nothing to do with it
    >
    > So what are you blubbering about, MD5-dennis?


    Its pointless trying to explain anything to you.
    I am not a primary school teacher and that's what you need.

    You sure live up to Peter (I know nothing) kolestomy


  2. Re: Hydrogen

    John F. Morse wrote:
    > Does it not hail where you live?

    Small.
    >
    > How about clouds?

    Sometimes.
    >
    > What about air pollution degrading the sunlight?

    Kill off the people making it? Most of it comes from China where there
    are zero regulations.
    >
    > Bird guano?
    >
    > Just what is a "lifetime"?

    Fruit fly or Elephant, or better yet a giant redwood (3,000 years).
    >
    > Don't take this the wrong way -- I'm all for the idea. But I realize
    > solar power, like wind power, isn't very "reliable."

    Usually when it is not sunny you have storm winds to make power.
    >
    > I still believe what we need is not more, nor new methods to produce
    > energy, but a change in the way we behave. The wasting of energy, like
    > we do every day, must be decreased.
    >
    > I never was a JFK fan, but one thing he said I remember well: "Ask not
    > what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
    >
    > YOU is the only thing YOU can change. ;-)
    >

    This is very true.
    Bill Baka


  3. Re: Hydrogen

    jellybean stonerfish wrote:
    >
    > If we are talking about wasted energy, lets not forget the atomic bombs
    > we used in war, and in testing. If all of that energy was used
    > properly.... Oh never mind.
    >

    The bombs were what got us into this nuclear age in the first place.
    The Chinese electronic toys will probably put us back in the stone age.

    Bill Baka

  4. Re: Hydrogen

    dennis@home wrote:

    >
    >
    > "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message
    > news:48f3be15$0$17118$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
    >> dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Fred" wrote in message
    >>> news:gcvpfg$9a0$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >>>> dennis@home wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Fred" wrote in message
    >>>>> news:gcv6p2$tld$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> The sun burns for free. Startup costs for solar power are
    >>>>>> high,
    >>>>>> but
    >>>>>> the cells last a lifetime and keep working. Maintenance is minimal
    >>>>>> and the best thing is they don't dump carbon dioxide into the
    >>>>>> atmosphere. Hydrogen is a good way to store the energy.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Lookup the total solar energy delivered per sq meter of your land
    >>>>> and work out if you can continue your lifestyle with only that much
    >>>>> energy to use.
    >>>>>
    >>>> More than I could ever want.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> In the UK it would mean covering the entire land mass with solar
    >>>>> cells even if they were 90% efficient.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Total fantasy. 5 or 6 panels could power most homes in
    >>>> conjunction
    >>>> with other energy technologies like geo-thermal heating and solar
    >>>> heat conversion panels... passive solar heating, better insolation,
    >>>> wind power, etc.
    >>>
    >>> So your green solution is to spend lots of carbon to save a bit each
    >>> year.
    >>> Just how long does it take to save more carbon than you have used to
    >>> build
    >>> this *new* house?

    >>
    >> What "carbon" is spent? Solar panels are not made of carbon, and carbon
    >> does not play any role in their fabrication

    >
    > Just admit that you don't have a clue, you never do as far as I can see.


    Explain, Oh Really Clueless One, what "carbon" has to do with "solar panels"

    >> Thermal heating has also nothing to do with "carbon". Solar heating
    >> likewise.
    >> Better insolation equally has nothing to do with carbon. Wind power has
    >> nothing to do with it
    >>
    >> So what are you blubbering about, MD5-dennis?

    >
    > Its pointless trying to explain anything to you.


    You can't explain anything to anyone

    > I am not a primary school teacher and that's what you need.
    >
    > You sure live up to Peter (I know nothing) kolestomy


    So you actually think *not* providing any answers will cut it?
    *You* claimed that solar panels "spend lots of carbon"

    You still have not provided even a shred of evidence for your latest
    blunder, MD5-dennis
    --
    Avoid reality at all costs.


  5. Re: Hydrogen

    Bill Baka wrote:
    > Fred wrote:
    >> Bill Baka wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Consider that most reactors were built in the 50's to 70's and the
    >>> state of electronics back then. Human error is a big factor in
    >>> boringly repetitive tasks. Now it might take one computer and one
    >>> human to watch the computer.

    >> "One Computer!?!?!" What dangerous crap. Do you know how often
    >> computers crash? Presumably you'll be running VISTA as an operating
    >> system on this computer. You'd have a meltdown inside of a week.
    >> You have no idea what you're talking about and no concept of reliable
    >> control systems.

    >
    > That went so far over your head did you even hear the "Swoosh"?
    > I meant the **POWER** of one modern computer could control all the
    > plants in the country, not what would happen if it broke.
    > I have worked with triple redundant systems so I think I have a clue or two.
    > Bill Baka




    Not that it is a good example but how would modern fighter pilots
    control their craft without computers. How about the space shuttle?
    caver1

  6. Re: Hydrogen

    dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >
    > "Fred" wrote in message
    > news:gd0ekd$ee1$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >
    >
    >>> You are a moron.

    >>
    >> Not compares to you he isn't.

    >
    > Don't worry I have you down as more stupid than him.
    >
    >>
    >>> You have just posted that we get 1Mw per sq meter of energy from the
    >>> sun. It proves *you* don't have a clue.
    >>> kw isn't even a measure of the energy but of the rate.
    >>>

    >> The rate is what we need. We get that from the solar constant
    >> which
    >> is right around one kilowatt per square meter.
    >> an at least have a look.

    >
    > look at what?
    > You have just posted the same figure that I did (approximately).
    >
    >>>
    >>> You will find that the energy delivered per sq meter is about 6.5
    >>> kwH per day or about 1000 kwH per year.

    >>
    >> Depending on where you are.
    >>
    >>> The panels are about 15% efficient

    >>
    >> Those would really be terrible panels to use. Solar panels
    >> today are
    >> much more efficient. You're fudging your figures to get the answer
    >> you want.

    >
    > Go on then name one panel that is efficient.
    >
    >>
    >>> so you get about 100 kwH of
    >>> useable electricity per sq meter per year.
    >>> Converting that to hydrogen will be about 10% efficient so you get
    >>> 10kwh of useable hydrogen.

    >>
    >> I don't think all the electricity is converted to hydrogen. but in
    >> light of your wrong numbers for the efficiency of solar panels, we
    >> have to assume you're lying here as well about the 10%.

    >
    > No most of it is wasted as heat, that's why its not efficient.



    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=hydrogen-house
    This guy in New Jersey is averaging 40kwh per day off his roof. he
    states he only needs 10.
    caver1


  7. Re: Hydrogen

    dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >
    > "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message
    > news:48f3be15$0$17118$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
    >> dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Fred" wrote in message
    >>> news:gcvpfg$9a0$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >>>> dennis@home wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Fred" wrote in message
    >>>>> news:gcv6p2$tld$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> The sun burns for free. Startup costs for solar power are
    >>>>>> high,
    >>>>>> but
    >>>>>> the cells last a lifetime and keep working. Maintenance is minimal
    >>>>>> and the best thing is they don't dump carbon dioxide into the
    >>>>>> atmosphere. Hydrogen is a good way to store the energy.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Lookup the total solar energy delivered per sq meter of your land
    >>>>> and work out if you can continue your lifestyle with only that much
    >>>>> energy to use.
    >>>>>
    >>>> More than I could ever want.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> In the UK it would mean covering the entire land mass with solar
    >>>>> cells even if they were 90% efficient.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Total fantasy. 5 or 6 panels could power most homes in
    >>>> conjunction
    >>>> with other energy technologies like geo-thermal heating and solar
    >>>> heat conversion panels... passive solar heating, better insolation,
    >>>> wind power, etc.
    >>>
    >>> So your green solution is to spend lots of carbon to save a bit each
    >>> year.
    >>> Just how long does it take to save more carbon than you have used to
    >>> build
    >>> this *new* house?

    >>
    >> What "carbon" is spent? Solar panels are not made of carbon, and
    >> carbon does
    >> not play any role in their fabrication

    >
    > Just admit that you don't have a clue, you never do as far as I can see.
    >
    >> Thermal heating has also nothing to do with "carbon". Solar heating
    >> likewise.
    >> Better insolation equally has nothing to do with carbon. Wind power has
    >> nothing to do with it
    >>
    >> So what are you blubbering about, MD5-dennis?

    >
    > Its pointless trying to explain anything to you.
    > I am not a primary school teacher and that's what you need.
    >
    > You sure live up to Peter (I know nothing) kolestomy



    You really duke the question when you are backed into a corner.
    caver1

  8. Re: Hydrogen

    On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:51:44 -0500, John F. Morse wrote:

    >> If we are talking about wasted energy, lets not forget the atomic bombs
    >> we used in war, and in testing. If all of that energy was used
    >> properly.... Oh never mind.

    >
    >
    > It WAS used properly!
    >
    > It ended the war, and without it, the Japs would have drug it out
    > forever, wasting oil and lives.
    >
    > The "testing" demonstrates what a big stick we have, and keeps the
    > others at bay.
    >
    > I'm sorry we didn't nuke China when we had the chance. Now we and the
    > rest of the world are paying (waste).
    >
    > Same goes for Iraq. Nuke 'em all, and be rid of them


    Asshole.

  9. Re: Hydrogen

    caver1 wrote:
    > John F. Morse wrote:
    >> caver1 wrote:
    >>> Fred wrote:
    >>>> Christopher Hunter wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Lionel B wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Eh? We've never had a "Peanut-Farmer president" in the history of
    >>>>>> my country, as far as I recall.
    >>>>> Selective memory? Carter was a stupid peanut farmer. He made "W"
    >>>>> look clever!
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Carter was a nuclear engineer as well as a farmer and he
    >>>> was one of
    >>>> the smartest and most well educated of your presidents. He wasn't
    >>>> perfect, but the best of a bad lot.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> He was a bad president because he was the most honest.
    >>> caver1

    >>
    >> And he didn't permit alcohol in the White House.
    >>

    >
    >
    > That was his home. His decision. Not that I agree.
    > caver1



    I do agree. There's no sense in people making important decisions to
    have a numb brain. ;-)

    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, AT&T, Intel, Novell, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  10. Re: Hydrogen

    jellybean stonerfish wrote:
    > On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:51:44 -0500, John F. Morse wrote:
    >
    >
    >>> If we are talking about wasted energy, lets not forget the atomic bombs
    >>> we used in war, and in testing. If all of that energy was used
    >>> properly.... Oh never mind.
    >>>

    >> It WAS used properly!
    >>
    >> It ended the war, and without it, the Japs would have drug it out
    >> forever, wasting oil and lives.
    >>
    >> The "testing" demonstrates what a big stick we have, and keeps the
    >> others at bay.
    >>
    >> I'm sorry we didn't nuke China when we had the chance. Now we and the
    >> rest of the world are paying (waste).
    >>
    >> Same goes for Iraq. Nuke 'em all, and be rid of them
    >>

    >
    > Asshole.
    >



    That isn't a very nice name for Iraq!


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, AT&T, Intel, Novell, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  11. Re: Hydrogen

    caver1 wrote:
    >

    .... snip ...
    >
    > I am sure there are plenty of people in the nuclear fields that
    > totally disagree with you. I agree the biggest hurdle to using
    > nuclear power is the waste. And so far there are no answers that
    > are good. But that doesn't mean that we don't research an find
    > the answer. Hell maybe by the time they perfect the space
    > elevator we can have the nuclear reactors in space and give the
    > waste a gentle push. The power lines can run down along side the
    > elevator. And I do believe we are already messing this one up.


    Well, this is the very rare sane attitude to nukes. If we could
    develop safe and reliable means of transmitting power from the moon
    to the earth we could have it made, using either solar power
    (preferable) or nukes on Luna.

    --
    [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
    [page]:
    Try the download section.

  12. Re: Hydrogen

    Christopher Hunter wrote:
    > Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >
    >> What "carbon" is spent? Solar panels are not made of carbon, and carbon
    >> does not play any role in their fabrication.
    >>

    >
    > At present, carbon is used in fabrication of /everything/ - it's expended
    > delivering goods to site, it's expended in the manufacture of everything
    > from bricks to solar panels and windows,,,,
    >
    > C.
    >


    Chris,

    Check your clock or timezone setting. You posted about three minutes
    before me, but your time shows about 57 minutes into the future.

    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, AT&T, Intel, Novell, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  13. Re: Hydrogen

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > What "carbon" is spent? Solar panels are not made of carbon, and carbon
    > does not play any role in their fabrication.


    At present, carbon is used in fabrication of /everything/ - it's expended
    delivering goods to site, it's expended in the manufacture of everything
    from bricks to solar panels and windows,,,,

    C.

  14. Re: Hydrogen

    CBFalconer wrote:

    > I was heavily involved in nucleonics, including power generation,
    > in the '50s and '60s.


    So was I - in the 80s and 90s, when the plants had aged, but the technology
    and risks were much better understood.

    The filth from a gas, coal, or oil burning power station has /many/ /times/
    the environmental impact per Megawatt than a nuclear station shows - for
    example, the contaminants from fossil fuels are blithely pumped into the
    air whereas nuclear facilities have their waste carefully contained, and
    with the correct and effective reprocessing, the amount of waste is
    surprisingly small, and not particularly "hot".

    C.


  15. Re: Hydrogen

    Fred wrote:

    > Carter was a nuclear engineer as well as a farmer and he was one of
    > the smartest and most well educated of your presidents. He wasn't
    > perfect, but the best of a bad lot.


    Have you met the man? I have, and he's as dumb as a stump. If he was any
    kind of "nuclear engineer", that would be scary!

    C.


  16. Re: Hydrogen

    Fred wrote:

    > No one is smart enough to play with nuclear energy. I'm in Mensa and
    > I qualified with room to spare and I wouldn't mess with it myself.


    It's /really/ funny how the Mensa types are /so/ insecure that they have to
    brag about their "qualification". We had a Mensa group at the University I
    attended. They were universally derided as they were, without exception,
    the dumbest of all the students.

    > The fact that people with IQs some 60 points below mine are running
    > nuclear power plants is a constant source of anxiety for me.


    You /have/ to have something to worry about...

    > Here in
    > Canada politicians and their rich masters wanted to do away with
    > regulations in some of the nuclear industry. They stopped following
    > them and the head of the Nuclear regulatory agency shut down the
    > reactor at Chalk River. This was the reactor that made nuclear
    > isotopes for medical treatments, like the treatment of cancer. When
    > things started to back up our Prime Minister fired the woman who was
    > in charge of the nuclear regulatory agency and put in someone of his
    > own choosing who was willing to allow the reactor to start up again
    > without the safety regulations in place. They are now running an
    > unsafe reactor at Chalk River and people are forgetting about it
    > because as soon as it was over, the mainstream media acted in their
    > usual fashion and stopped covering the story.


    If you do some rudimentary research, you'll find that you're wrong.
    However, don't let /facts/ get in the way of your ill-informed prejudices!

    > Strange, but when the TV news stops covering a story, the vast majority of
    > the people stop thinking about it.


    The /vast/ majority of people (including you "Mensa" types) are incapable
    of "thinking" at all.

    > You put nuclear waste in a bottle and when it starts to leak you have
    > to put it in a bigger bottle, all the time hoping that nobody "crazier
    > than you" comes along and lets it out of the bottle.


    Again, your prejudice defeats your supposed intelligence.

    > It's shear insanity to try to work with that stuff on a small planet,
    > especially when it's the only planet we've got! If we mess this one
    > up, there's no second chances. Shear Insanity!


    The word, Mensa Man, is "sheer", but I wouldn't expect you to know the
    difference!

    C.


  17. Re: Hydrogen



    "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message
    news:48f3d0d9$0$17120$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message
    >> news:48f3be15$0$17118$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
    >>> dennis@home wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Fred" wrote in message
    >>>> news:gcvpfg$9a0$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >>>>> dennis@home wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "Fred" wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:gcv6p2$tld$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> The sun burns for free. Startup costs for solar power are
    >>>>>>> high,
    >>>>>>> but
    >>>>>>> the cells last a lifetime and keep working. Maintenance is minimal
    >>>>>>> and the best thing is they don't dump carbon dioxide into the
    >>>>>>> atmosphere. Hydrogen is a good way to store the energy.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Lookup the total solar energy delivered per sq meter of your land
    >>>>>> and work out if you can continue your lifestyle with only that much
    >>>>>> energy to use.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> More than I could ever want.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> In the UK it would mean covering the entire land mass with solar
    >>>>>> cells even if they were 90% efficient.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Total fantasy. 5 or 6 panels could power most homes in
    >>>>> conjunction
    >>>>> with other energy technologies like geo-thermal heating and solar
    >>>>> heat conversion panels... passive solar heating, better insolation,
    >>>>> wind power, etc.
    >>>>
    >>>> So your green solution is to spend lots of carbon to save a bit each
    >>>> year.
    >>>> Just how long does it take to save more carbon than you have used to
    >>>> build
    >>>> this *new* house?
    >>>
    >>> What "carbon" is spent? Solar panels are not made of carbon, and carbon
    >>> does not play any role in their fabrication


    Just admit that you don't have a clue.
    ?You tried to score points again and showed yourself to be a fool again.
    When you understand what the carbon footprint is you may understand.

    I will give you a hint.. cycles aren't made from carbon either but they have
    a carbon footprint before they are ever ridden.


  18. Re: Hydrogen



    "caver1" wrote in message
    news:gd0kbn$h3f$3@registered.motzarella.org...


    >
    > http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=hydrogen-house
    > This guy in New Jersey is averaging 40kwh per day off his roof. he states
    > he only needs 10.


    10 panels or 10 sq meters?
    I bet that's peak in summer not average over the year.

    Or is it he only needs 10 kwh and he can get 40 kwh?
    That is meaningless other than that he has put in too many panels and wasted
    a lot of carbon making them and installing them


  19. Re: Hydrogen



    "caver1" wrote in message
    news:gd0ken$h3f$4@registered.motzarella.org...

    > You really duke the question when you are backed into a corner.


    If you ask I will answer, however I suspect you already know.
    Peter is a moron that just keeps stalking me and calling me an idiot
    whenever I post something he doesn't like or understand.
    This happens a lot as he understands very little.
    He will be along soon to make a bigger fool of himself.


  20. Re: Hydrogen

    On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:24:11 +0000, Christopher Hunter wrote:

    > Lionel B wrote:
    >
    >> Eh? We've never had a "Peanut-Farmer president" in the history of my
    >> country, as far as I recall.

    >
    > Selective memory? Carter was a stupid peanut farmer. He made "W" look
    > clever!


    I know who the "Peanut-Farmer president" was (although I wasn't aware
    that he farmed stupid peanuts).

    But we don't have presidents in my country.

    >>> and there hasn't been sufficient investment in the reprocessing plants
    >>> in this country.

    >>
    >> Um, which country is that?

    >
    > The UK.


    Mine too. And I agree with that.

    >> Eh? Nuclear fusion is safer than burning fossil fuels,


    Sorry, meant "nuclear fission"

    > Yes. The filth generated by burning fossil fuels is poisoning the whole
    > planet.


    As is the filth generated by nuclear fission. And burning fossil fuels
    doesn't have the capacity to render instant mayhem and destruction a la
    Chernobyl.

    Hopefully, nuclear *fusion*, whenever it arrives, will be both clean and
    safe.

    >> wind power,

    [...]
    >> solar power,

    [...]

    I cited these in response to your bizarre claim that nuclear power is
    "Still safer than /anything/ else!".

    --
    Lionel B

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast