[PLUG-TALK] Risk of earthquake based nuclear problems in USA
winterbeastie at yahoo.com
Sat Mar 19 22:04:01 PDT 2011
This all brought to mind a question. we have "hot states". Aridzona, New Mexico,
Texas, Nevada, and Colorado. These states have lots of unused desert lands. Why
can't Solar plants be set up there? Germany beats the stuffing out of us for
solar use, and they have a climate like Oregon. Why are we lagging behind so
From: Russell Johnson <russ at dimstar.net>
To: Off-topic and potentially flammable discussion
<plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org>
Sent: Sat, March 19, 2011 9:54:10 PM
Subject: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Risk of earthquake based nuclear problems in USA
On Mar 19, 2011, at 9:24 PM, Keith Lofstrom wrote:
> Solar makes some sense, in the stratosphere or above. I'm
> learning how to do that. Most people expect someone else to do
> the work, and grouse if the reality does not match their fantasies.
Have you seen what they are doing with solar powered steam plants in SoCal? I
read that Pacific Power or PG&E had a trial plant up and running east of LA.
This was some time ago, so I have no idea if that changed. It looked promising.
> Realistic solar cells are more like 10% assuming some time
> between cleanings, resulting in some average opacity.
Yeah. Solar cells have not come through as promised. I remember reading about
the wonderful ways things were going to work. Too bad. Kinda like we're all
supposed to be driving flying cars by now.
> Meanwhile, if you actually run numbers, rather than listen to
> innumerate media clowns, you will find that the risks of nuclear
> power have been way, way exaggerated.
As with anything.. The best story gets the most hype.
> *DO THE NUMBERS*. Don't trust other people. Don't trust me.
> Trust what you can figure out on your own, from measurements
> you can repeat or track to primary data. Empower yourself.
> That is what open source is about - now move on to OPEN REALITY.
Well, if I had time to sit here and crunch numbers, I wouldn't have time to do
what they pay me for. As much as I enjoy my job, like most people, I work so
that I can live comfortably, and have a bit left over to play. I spend a bit of
time crunching numbers now.
> Kill your TV and recycle it. It is propagating lies and
> anxiety so you will eat the crap food advertised on it.
What if I only watch cartoons? :)
My TV is FAR from a source of anything except entertainment. On the rare
occasion of an earthquake or tsunami, I will watch broadcast news, balanced with
other sources. I love how I saw the footage airing on 8 and 12 a full 24 hours
earlier on several web only sources.
> If you are worried about cancer (and you should be), that
> is the quickest and most effective cancer reduction method
I'm worried about it, but I put it in perspective. There's a difference between
being worried about it, and becoming catatonic because you can't handle the
pressure. It's that cost/benefit analysis again. I worry about it when I'm
talking with my doctor, and at other times that are appropriate. Then I put a
plan in place and run with it. Further down the road, I re-evaluate and adjust,
> Crouching in front of the TV, paralyzed by fear
> and gobbling twinkies, is not going to get the job done.
And that's exactly the catatonia I'm talking about. I think on that point, we
are in agreement.
russ at dimstar.net
PLUG-talk mailing list
PLUG-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the PLUG-talk