🚀 go-pugleaf

<none (Quarks like a duck)> wrote in message
news:8g3n3s$fpk$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> Gregory Greenman <morbius@home.com> wrote:
>
> >codeman wrote:
>
> >> How about each state, providence, county, etc.  be responsible for
their
> >> very own power generation, cleanup, and disposal of whatever waste is
> >> generated!!   They couldn't sell, trasfer, transport, whatever power
across
> >> state lines.
> >>
> >> Each state must provide their own fuel and plant as well.  If the state
has
> >> coal, then they may want to consider burning it and dealing with the
ash.
> >> If the state is lucky enough to have sufficient hydro capacity, then
they
> >> can build a dam and install turbines.  If a particular state has no
natural
> >> resources, then they may want to install a nuclear power plant or do
> >> without.  Of course all states have the option of renewable energy
> >> techniques.  Oh by the way,  no averaging cost across state lines.  If
a
> >> person lived  where it was expensive (PV/wind/nuclear) to generate
> >> electricity because of the limited choices of fuels, then the good
citizens
> >> would have to bear the full cost themselves.   This would make it
> >> interesting, wouldn't it?
>
> >codeman,
>
> >   Why stop with just electricity?  Perhaps ALL states should be
> >self sufficient in ALL their needs.
>
> >    Let's outlaw the shipment of food across state lines - all states
> >should be required to grow their own food for their own population.
>
> >All states should be self sufficient in their water supplies.  The
> >residents of the state can use only the water that rains on that
> >state - and can be stored in the lakes of that state.
>
> >Each state should produce its own automobiles, and appliances,
> >and all consumer goods.  There should be no transportation of
> >anything but people across state borders.
>
> >Perhaps the people should be required to carry travel papers if
> >they want to cross state borders.
>
> >Sure would be one Hell of a country.... it would really take the
> >"United" out of the "United States of America".
>
> >What a parochial attitude.
>
> >Dr. Gregory Greenman
> >Physicist
>
>
> The discussion is turning toward governing: citizens and states
> concerns. The federal government forced nuclear power on everyone by
> threatening to build nuclear plants within the TVA. Since utilities
> wanted the profits (previously very reluctant top build N-plants) they
> finally decided they did not want to compete with the government and
> capitulated. No citizen had a vote in the matter. Now utilites are
> already being bailed out to the tune of $100 billion - mostly being
> nuclear plants.
>
> Asking citizens to solve the problem created by an industry that
> "built the house without an outhouse" is of course going to cause
> disent and anger. Don't tell us we need to live with the waste problem
> and help you all solve it. We never wanted it. We never voted on it.
> And you all lied about it repeatedly. If you were required to have
> solutions for the waste problem before creating all of it, you'd still
> be scratching your hairy asses.


I will not argue with your anger, you have your reasons,  please read on.
As I understand it, nuclear power plants provide approximately 20% of the
electricity of the US.  Starting when and ending when?..  Please tell me
what would be the out come if the nuclear plants were never constructed, the
turbines, and generators never turned?  What shape would the US be in?  What
other form of generation would have been preferred to generate "that" 20%?
What sort of  business and so forth would you have cut off (sacrificed) so
wide spread blackouts (the 20% we theoretically no longer have) would not
have occurred?  I can thing of quite a few non essential electric usages,
but I want to hear yours.

>
> Claiming that citizens have uncalled-for bad attitutes is like saying
> we took your money, continue to take your money, hand us a bag of shit
> and then ask why we are upset.
>
> You still have nuts on here saying the waste problem ios solved and a
> simple matter. Where is your criticism of that bullshit? Your attitude
> is la la land. Stop feeding the public bullshit.
>
>

I presume that you are ranting and raving about the nuclear industry and
everything associated with it.  My original post (ranting and raving) was a
broader sweep of the hand and includes fossil fuel (coal) power plants that
sent CO2 into the atmosphere, mineral extraction that utilizes the natural
resources but disfigures the land to some degree, hydro power units
 damming up rivers) being constructed and displacing snail darters....
logging of old growth and pissing off the spotted owl huggers.... and so
forth and so on......  I was aiming at all those special interest groups
that say.... NOT IN MY BACK YARD...... OVER MY DEAD BODY........."  I wasn't
necessarily singling out nuclear industry with my original post...

"Asking citizens to solve the problem created by an industry that...."  The
same industries that employee the you's and me's?.... The same industries
that you's and me's own stock in and getting xx% rate of return on our
money?   The same industries that make goods and services that we purchase?
It is bad for industry to make a profit?  If its bad for industry to make a
profit then it must be bad for individuals to make a profit.  Right?
Wrong!!!!