Posted by Mr Clarke on May 23, 2005, 7:20 pm
Yes, but I mean used as an energy source.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Hydrogen will be a flash in the pan when perpetual motion becomes
> > popular.
> "becomes popular"? it is popular right now.
Posted by Dave Hinz on May 23, 2005, 10:19 am
> Hydrogen will be a flash in the pan when perpetual motion becomes
> popular.
Sorry, the crackpot group is over --->>> that way --->>>
Posted by John P Bengi on May 23, 2005, 1:40 pm
I guess you would know about the crackpot group. You live here...LOL
I thought it was a great comment. Doesn't fit into the tough guy attitude
here though.
wrote:
> > Hydrogen will be a flash in the pan when perpetual motion becomes
> > popular.
> Sorry, the crackpot group is over --->>> that way --->>>
Posted by Arnold Walker on May 22, 2005, 4:41 pm
> >
> > Safest? You are having a laugh of course. What about the waste? A
> > wonderful legacy for our future off-springs.
> What about the waste from the coal, oil & NG-generated electricity
you are
> using right now? You are breathing it! ...and your children will be
breathing
> it. More and more children are getting asthma every decade; why do you
suppose
> that is? I would rather have a few hundred tons of nuclear waste stashed
under
> a mountain or sealed up under miles of ocean water where it won't bother
anybody
> than being forced to breathe that crap.
Actually if we are truly recycling ,not burying waste under a mountain.
Anything buried instead of used at any waste, site nuke or otherwise, is a
loss by that many pounds.
Ironically the folks that are supposed to be worried about the environment
are the biggest threat to
the realistic answers of taking care of the environment.
A boat anchor attitude of all crictical with no answers seems to be the
politically correct way to go. Instead of a engineer or scientist attitude
with I don't like this ...but if we looked at why it is wrong maybe we can
fix it.
Real world on nuke in the US is that the critics did stop construction of
plants inside the US. But in the 20 twenty years time, many anti-nuke
countries like
Japan have opened plants with designs directly or indirectly by US
engineers.So safer plant design was possible, inspite of the boat anchors.
And with 70billion tons of waste under the mountain or stockpiled by red
tape at the reactor,I hope someone is rolling up their sleeves and figuring
out how to use heavy water or ????? instead of burying it.Even if ,it is
nuke batteries for the PC crowd's electric car(five to ten years on a single
charge of heavy water) ,while you work on the problem(in a foreign country
of course...so the PC 'er will be happy with your work) .
> And then there is global warming...
> Give me nuclear any day.
> Vaughn
> >
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Posted by nospam.clare.nce on May 23, 2005, 10:13 pm
On Sat, 21 May 2005 01:13:35 GMT, "Vaughn"
>>
>> Safest? You are having a laugh of course. What about the waste? A
>> wonderful legacy for our future off-springs.
> What about the waste from the coal, oil & NG-generated electricity you are
>using right now? You are breathing it! ...and your children will be breathing
>it. More and more children are getting asthma every decade; why do you suppose
>that is? I would rather have a few hundred tons of nuclear waste stashed under
>a mountain or sealed up under miles of ocean water where it won't bother
anybody
>than being forced to breathe that crap.
> And then there is global warming...
> Give me nuclear any day.
>Vaughn
You are volunteering your back yard to store the spent fuel? You are
sure it won't bother anybody?
At this point in time, NO ONE knows for sure how to safely store the
stuff long term.
>>
> > popular.
> "becomes popular"? it is popular right now.