"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
. com...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"charlesb" wrote:

One quick example: Irrationally afraid of nuclear
power, the "PC police" has seen to it that we stick
with the burning of fossil fuels for our electricity.
How clever.


Irrationally afraid of nuclear power? According to the UN, there have
been
386 serious nuclear power plant accidents around the world (serious
defined
as a significant release of nuclear material into the atmosphere).
Several
of those accidents have been right here in this country. In addition,
there
have been over 6,000 nuclear weapons tests, resulting in millions of
tons
of
radioactive material spread across this planet. Nobody is certain how
many
nuclear weapons accidents there have been. And, since records are not
kept,
nobody is certain how many accidents there have been at nuclear research
facilities. The nuclear industry, peaceful or military, has been no
friend
to this planet or it's people. And that's not a "PC" perspective - it's
simple common sense.

The following comments address power plants only. Weapons is an entirely
different issue.

Yes, irrationally afraid. The number of deaths from nuclear power plants
pales into insignificance in comparison to the number of minors who have
died to bring us coal to burn not only from accidents but black lung
disease. The damage done from nuclear power plants pales into
insignificance in comparison to the damage done from oil spills. More
people have died from dams breaking than power plant accidents.

If we applied the same logic and standards to other sources of power as we
do to nuclear, we would not have any electricity at all. We'd have to
shut
down every coal, oil, and hydroelectric power plant in the world.

Nuclear power is the cleanest, safest, most efficient form of power
generation available at this time.

Provided equipment is stable, and the "human error" doesn't factor in......


Wind and solar have to be excluded at this time since the technology
doesn't
exist to make these forms widely available on an efficient basis. And if
we
follow the logic of some people in this group on other items, wind power
is
too antiquated since it's been used for hundreds if not thousands of
years.

Wind is actually a good source, if there is a consistent breeze blowing
enough to keep the blades of the windmill moving, and would seem to be
fairly inexpensive to construct as well.

As far as solar, the cost of setting up systems are extremely expensive
still as the manufacturers of such materials are willing to lower their
prices any.......


And let's compare nuclear power to some non-power industries. Are you
aware
of how devastating accidents at chemical plants can be?

Yes.... Dow Chemical and Dow Corning are my neighbors.... and I am nervous
on a daily basis.... From an insider that I know, at of one of those plants
that shared this little tidbit of information..... there is 2 specific
materials (they wouldn't state which two) were mixed or tampered with the
wrong way in storage there that would level Midland County and make it into
a crater, and pretty much create extensive damage to Saginaw and Genesee
Counties, and part of the Northern portion of Oakland County as well. Makes
the human error equation a little more relevant to me, especially if it is a
terrorist related activity.

Have you ever seen
a grain elevator explode from sparks causing the suspended dust to
explode?

Yep, the one I saw blew the top off of the silo, and burned for what like
seemed forever!


I'd rather live next to a nuclear power plant than any other type of power
generating facility or any of several other industrial endeavors.

Not me as much.... would rather see more "natural" forms utilized if it were
cost effective. That is the problem.




--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote:

Wind is actually a good source, if there is a consistent
breeze blowing enough to keep the blades of the
windmill moving, and would seem to be fairly
inexpensive to construct as well.


Los Angeles has several hundred wind turbines placed in the hills around
the area. And, since I saw them getting ready to put some more up when I
drove through there recently, it appears they are expanding the program.
There are many other areas around the country where such turbines could be
placed and the power then fed into the regional power grids (supplying
cities many hundreds of miles away). I also saw several experimental solar
power plants in Arizona, perhaps feeding power to local cities or the LA
power grid. Alternative power sources are quickly reaching maturity.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart wrote:

Los Angeles has several hundred wind turbines placed in the hills
around the area.

....and if they could harness Len Anderson's output they'd have it made.

Dave K8MN

Dwight Stewart wrote:

Los Angeles has several hundred wind turbines placed in the hills
around the area.

For some reason I envision truckloads of refried beans rolling into L.A., to
assist the valiant cadres of illegal aliens in keeping a steady wind going.

How you Californians keep them all facing away from those hills at the same
time, is what I wonder.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

Hey Charles,

Give me a trip to Taco Bell, and some cheap welfare beer like Milwaukee's
Best or Busch beer and I could power those wind turbines on my own!


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
"charlesb" wrote in message
m...

Dwight Stewart wrote:

Los Angeles has several hundred wind turbines placed in the hills
around the area.

For some reason I envision truckloads of refried beans rolling into L.A.,
to
assist the valiant cadres of illegal aliens in keeping a steady wind
going.

How you Californians keep them all facing away from those hills at the
same
time, is what I wonder.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

"charlesb" wrote:

For some reason I envision truckloads of refried beans
rolling into L.A., to assist the valiant cadres of illegal
aliens in keeping a steady wind going.

How you Californians keep them all facing away from
those hills at the same time, is what I wonder.


No need to worry about it - the valley is shaped to funnel most of the
wind generated in a that direction. Which, by the way, just happens to be
generally towards Texas (and you thought the smell was coming from cows in
El Paso).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

Wind is actually a good source, if there is a consistent breeze blowing
enough to keep the blades of the windmill moving, and would seem to be
fairly inexpensive to construct as well.

As far as solar, the cost of setting up systems are extremely expensive
still as the manufacturers of such materials are willing to lower their
prices any.......


I've lived in Seattle. Too little sun and almost no wind. According to a
book I was reading when I wanted to build a greenhouse, windloading is not a
consideration there as it has the lowest winds in the country.

As far as prices, there's not enough demand to allow efficient manufacturing
methods. Selling at a loss is too risky for a business unless they have a
very strong reason to believe the demand will pick up.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

I've lived in Seattle. Too little sun and almost no wind.
According to a book I was reading when I wanted to
build a greenhouse, windloading is not a consideration
there as it has the lowest winds in the country.


Wind turbines don't have to be located in the back yard of the Safeco
Field, Dee (Safeco Field replaced the King Dome). They can be placed on the
other side of Puget Sound, where there is plenty of wind. Another
alternative is some of the islands north of Seattle at the mouth of the
Sound (also plenty of wind).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
news
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

I've lived in Seattle. Too little sun and almost no wind.
According to a book I was reading when I wanted to
build a greenhouse, windloading is not a consideration
there as it has the lowest winds in the country.


Wind turbines don't have to be located in the back yard of the Safeco
Field, Dee (Safeco Field replaced the King Dome). They can be placed on
the
other side of Puget Sound, where there is plenty of wind. Another
alternative is some of the islands north of Seattle at the mouth of the
Sound (also plenty of wind).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/



How much land will be used to build enough turbines to power Seattle and the
surrounding suburbs? And the other side of Puget Sound doesn't have "plenty
of wind". It's higher than Seattle but still much lower than many other
areas of the country.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

Wind is actually a good source, if there is a consistent breeze blowing
enough to keep the blades of the windmill moving, and would seem to be
fairly inexpensive to construct as well.

As far as solar, the cost of setting up systems are extremely expensive
still as the manufacturers of such materials are willing to lower their
prices any.......

I've lived in Seattle. Too little sun and almost no wind. According to a
book I was reading when I wanted to build a greenhouse, windloading is not a
consideration there as it has the lowest winds in the country.

Oh, tell us ALL about WESTERN Washington, Dee.

The whole state is "just like Seattle," isn't it?

I doubt you've ever been beyond the Puget Sound area.

You don't know EASTERN Washington.

Did you get all your personal-experience-geography from that radiotelegraph
joy book?

LHA