Hybrid car cost of ownership

Pete C. wrote:
>
> JazzMan wrote:
> >
> > Pete C. wrote:
> > >
> > > The paranoid anti nuke folks will of course try to hype anything they
> > > can to get attention, but that does not make the terrorist threat any
> > > more legitimate than most of their other arguments.
> > >
> > > I'll note that in all the decades of nuclear energy production there has
> > > only been one truly significant accident in the entire world - Chernobyl
> >
> > Don't forget these:
> >
> > http://www.nci.org/i/ib10499.htm
> > http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/10179.html
> >
> > A few others:
> > http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cch.../accident.html
> >
> > I like that "...there has only been one truly significant accident
> > in the entire world...", except for the others, that is. LOL! There
> > have been thousands of smaller accidents that resulted in little
> > to no radiation release to the envirnment, but to ignore those is
> > the exact same thing as ignoring the shuttle tiles that were damaged
> > by foam in the years before Columbia. Nothing made by man is perfect.
>
> And that is exactly incorrect. If there was little to no radiation
> release it just proves that the safety systems *did* work. Just because
> it feed someone's paranoia does not make it a significant accident.
>
> The accidents are not ignored either, the lessons learned from them are
> incorporated into the next generation reactor designs. This is no
> different than the lessons learned from aircraft accidents and auto
> accidents with exception that in those accidents people get killed.
>
> To imply that because there were accidents the whole idea of nuclear
> energy should be scrapped is utterly ridiculous and just the mentality
> of the paranoid anti nuke loonies. If the same illogic were applied
> elsewhere we would have no aircraft, no cars, etc.
>
> Half a dozen planes crashed, lets ban them all! A hundred cars crashed,
> lets ban them all! Total nonsense...
>
> Planes crash, the causes are studied and changes are incorporated in
> other planes to prevent the same accident from occurring again. Cars
> crash and the causes are studied and changes are incorporated to help
> prevent them. The shuttle blew up twice and both times the causes were
> studied, changes made and the shuttle flew (or will fly) again. This is
> how progress is made.
>


Let's see if I understand your logic correctly: Anyone who
doesn't agree with you that nuclear power is the end all
and be all solution to all of humankind's problems is a
whacko looney environut, right? They're all paranoid, right?

At least plane crashes don't leave thousand square mile
patches of the planet permanently uninhabitable like Chernobyl
and Kyshtym did.

I bet you have no clue as to how people can disagree with you,
being that you're so absolutely unshakably right.

I'm all for safe nuclear power that doesn't create any dangerous
waste. When that becomes a reality I'll be behind it one hundred
percent.

JazzMan
--
************************************************** ********
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
************************************************** ********
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
************************************************** ********

B. Peg > wrote in article
>...
>
> The plan is (and there is a test plan going on right now in Oregon) to
tax
> by the mile with a device that gives your mileage at the pump............



Of course, they would NEVER consider downloading other retrievable
information such as speeds driven, where the vehicle has been recently, or
if there are any outstanding parking citations......

.......and, disregarding the "Denver Boot", they would NEVER consider some
means of electronically disabling a vehicle until fines and assessments
against said vehicle are paid.....

......or WOULD they?

"JazzMan" > wrote in message
...
> Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > JazzMan wrote:
> > >
> > > Pete C. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The paranoid anti nuke folks will of course try to hype anything
they
> > > > can to get attention, but that does not make the terrorist
threat any
> > > > more legitimate than most of their other arguments.
> > > >
> > > > I'll note that in all the decades of nuclear energy production
there has
> > > > only been one truly significant accident in the entire world -
Chernobyl
> > >
> > > Don't forget these:
> > >
> > > http://www.nci.org/i/ib10499.htm
> > > http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/10179.html
> > >
> > > A few others:
> > > http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cch.../accident.html
> > >
> > > I like that "...there has only been one truly significant accident
> > > in the entire world...", except for the others, that is. LOL!
There
> > > have been thousands of smaller accidents that resulted in little
> > > to no radiation release to the envirnment, but to ignore those is
> > > the exact same thing as ignoring the shuttle tiles that were
damaged
> > > by foam in the years before Columbia. Nothing made by man is
perfect.
> >
> > And that is exactly incorrect. If there was little to no radiation
> > release it just proves that the safety systems *did* work. Just
because
> > it feed someone's paranoia does not make it a significant accident.
> >
> > The accidents are not ignored either, the lessons learned from them
are
> > incorporated into the next generation reactor designs. This is no
> > different than the lessons learned from aircraft accidents and auto
> > accidents with exception that in those accidents people get killed.
> >
> > To imply that because there were accidents the whole idea of nuclear
> > energy should be scrapped is utterly ridiculous and just the
mentality
> > of the paranoid anti nuke loonies. If the same illogic were applied
> > elsewhere we would have no aircraft, no cars, etc.
> >
> > Half a dozen planes crashed, lets ban them all! A hundred cars
crashed,
> > lets ban them all! Total nonsense...
> >
> > Planes crash, the causes are studied and changes are incorporated in
> > other planes to prevent the same accident from occurring again. Cars
> > crash and the causes are studied and changes are incorporated to
help
> > prevent them. The shuttle blew up twice and both times the causes
were
> > studied, changes made and the shuttle flew (or will fly) again. This
is
> > how progress is made.
> >
>
>
> Let's see if I understand your logic correctly: Anyone who
> doesn't agree with you that nuclear power is the end all
> and be all solution to all of humankind's problems is a
> whacko looney environut, right? They're all paranoid, right?
>
> At least plane crashes don't leave thousand square mile
> patches of the planet permanently uninhabitable like Chernobyl
> and Kyshtym did.

Hate to tell you but you are FOS. There is actually very liite of
Chernobyl that could not be lived in. There are already a lot of people
living in that area.




----== 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 =----

y_p_w wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:
>
> > Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Is their plan to tax gas more if the vehicle has high mileage??? That
> >> seems
> >> backwards even for them.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Of course, didn't you see that coming? It happens all the time:
> >
> > Tax the fire out of cigarettes to "discourage" smoking and rake in
> > reveue.... then the amount of people who smoke really DOES go down and
> > "whoops! Not enough tax revenue, gotta open a new revenue stream."
> >
> > Tax the snot out of gasoline, people go buy efficient cars, and "whoops!
> > Not enough gasoline tax revenue, better start charging people by how
> > many miles they drive to recover revenue."
>
> It was kind of strange how it worked with regulated energy utilities.
> They created customer credits and incentives to purchase more efficient
> electrical appliances, and as a result were allowed to increase rates
> to make up for a lower demand for power.
>
> Of course that went all batty when California deregulated its power.

The problem is that CA didn't really deregulate their power, they only
*half* deregulated it. It was their "deregulating" the retail and still
regulating the wholesale that caused the whole thing to implode. Sure
Enron may have tried to manipulate things near the end, but it was CA's
bogus deregulation that set things up for collapse.

Pete C.

JazzMan wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > JazzMan wrote:
> > >
> > > Pete C. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The paranoid anti nuke folks will of course try to hype anything they
> > > > can to get attention, but that does not make the terrorist threat any
> > > > more legitimate than most of their other arguments.
> > > >
> > > > I'll note that in all the decades of nuclear energy production there has
> > > > only been one truly significant accident in the entire world - Chernobyl
> > >
> > > Don't forget these:
> > >
> > > http://www.nci.org/i/ib10499.htm
> > > http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/10179.html
> > >
> > > A few others:
> > > http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cch.../accident.html
> > >
> > > I like that "...there has only been one truly significant accident
> > > in the entire world...", except for the others, that is. LOL! There
> > > have been thousands of smaller accidents that resulted in little
> > > to no radiation release to the envirnment, but to ignore those is
> > > the exact same thing as ignoring the shuttle tiles that were damaged
> > > by foam in the years before Columbia. Nothing made by man is perfect.
> >
> > And that is exactly incorrect. If there was little to no radiation
> > release it just proves that the safety systems *did* work. Just because
> > it feed someone's paranoia does not make it a significant accident.
> >
> > The accidents are not ignored either, the lessons learned from them are
> > incorporated into the next generation reactor designs. This is no
> > different than the lessons learned from aircraft accidents and auto
> > accidents with exception that in those accidents people get killed.
> >
> > To imply that because there were accidents the whole idea of nuclear
> > energy should be scrapped is utterly ridiculous and just the mentality
> > of the paranoid anti nuke loonies. If the same illogic were applied
> > elsewhere we would have no aircraft, no cars, etc.
> >
> > Half a dozen planes crashed, lets ban them all! A hundred cars crashed,
> > lets ban them all! Total nonsense...
> >
> > Planes crash, the causes are studied and changes are incorporated in
> > other planes to prevent the same accident from occurring again. Cars
> > crash and the causes are studied and changes are incorporated to help
> > prevent them. The shuttle blew up twice and both times the causes were
> > studied, changes made and the shuttle flew (or will fly) again. This is
> > how progress is made.
> >
>
> Let's see if I understand your logic correctly: Anyone who
> doesn't agree with you that nuclear power is the end all
> and be all solution to all of humankind's problems is a
> whacko looney environut, right? They're all paranoid, right?
>
> At least plane crashes don't leave thousand square mile
> patches of the planet permanently uninhabitable like Chernobyl
> and Kyshtym did.
>
> I bet you have no clue as to how people can disagree with you,
> being that you're so absolutely unshakably right.
>
> I'm all for safe nuclear power that doesn't create any dangerous
> waste. When that becomes a reality I'll be behind it one hundred
> percent.
>
> JazzMan
> --
> ************************************************** ********
> Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
> Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
> ************************************************** ********
> "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
> supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
> live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
> ************************************************** ********

Not true at all, anyone who blindly thinks that all nuclear energy
should be abandoned is a "whacko loony environut" and paranoid.

Nuclear power may or may not be the "solution to all of humankind's
problems", but it is clearly the best option we have now or likely will
have over the next 10 years. To reject it because of paranoia is absurd.

As noted in another post Chernobyl did *not* leave "a thousand square
mile patch permanently uninhabitable". In fact outside of the plant area
itself everything has been decontaminated. Granted that was a lot of
work, but it was done and the whole accident was due to a reactor design
several generations behind the ones we are currently running, and those
are obsolete as well.

It's difficult to disagree with facts. While I have not personally been
to Chernobyl, I do have several friends who have been there multiple
times doing relief and rebuilding work and their eyewitness reports
confirm that the area is quite inhabitable now.

You can't be "all for safe nuclear power that doesn't create any
dangerous waste" if you try to prevent any progress towards developing
the technology.

I'm for the technology that is safe, available and practical *now* that
does not release any pollution on a daily basis (other than waste heat),
and what waste is generated is compact and containable. It is the
technology that is the best bridge while we develop practical renewable
sources and better nuclear technology for that matter.

Pete C.

y_p_w wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
>
> > Technically true although a relatively small factor, also the OP was
> > implying that a power plant located far away from a city would somehow
> > be less polluting.
>
> That wasn't quite what I was getting at. City centers and suburbs
> are polluted as it is. A remotely located powerplant can relocate
> the pollution to a place that's less impacted. Of course now with
> suburban sprawl, there aren't that many places that aren't reasonably
> impacted by pollution.

Ok, now I see the point you were trying to make, however it is also
incorrect since pollution does not remain in one place. Other than
nuclear plants which produce solid waste, other conventional plants all
produce airborne pollution which can and will travel thousands of miles.

Pete C.

y_p_w wrote:

>
>
> Pete C. wrote:
>
>> Technically true although a relatively small factor, also the OP was
>> implying that a power plant located far away from a city would somehow
>> be less polluting.
>
>
> That wasn't quite what I was getting at. City centers and suburbs
> are polluted as it is.

Exactly- they're already a lost cause

> A remotely located powerplant can relocate
> the pollution to a place that's less impacted.

No, it will bring pollution to a remote pristine area that will be MORE
impacted than the already-dirty city.

Typical urban NIMBY thinking.

JazzMan wrote:

> Pete C. wrote:
>
>>JazzMan wrote:
>>
>>>Pete C. wrote:
>>>
>>>>The paranoid anti nuke folks will of course try to hype anything they
>>>>can to get attention, but that does not make the terrorist threat any
>>>>more legitimate than most of their other arguments.
>>>>
>>>>I'll note that in all the decades of nuclear energy production there has
>>>>only been one truly significant accident in the entire world - Chernobyl
>>>
>>>Don't forget these:
>>>
>>>http://www.nci.org/i/ib10499.htm
>>>http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/10179.html
>>>
>>>A few others:
>>>http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cch.../accident.html
>>>
>>>I like that "...there has only been one truly significant accident
>>>in the entire world...", except for the others, that is. LOL! There
>>>have been thousands of smaller accidents that resulted in little
>>>to no radiation release to the envirnment, but to ignore those is
>>>the exact same thing as ignoring the shuttle tiles that were damaged
>>>by foam in the years before Columbia. Nothing made by man is perfect.
>>
>>And that is exactly incorrect. If there was little to no radiation
>>release it just proves that the safety systems *did* work. Just because
>>it feed someone's paranoia does not make it a significant accident.
>>
>>The accidents are not ignored either, the lessons learned from them are
>>incorporated into the next generation reactor designs. This is no
>>different than the lessons learned from aircraft accidents and auto
>>accidents with exception that in those accidents people get killed.
>>
>>To imply that because there were accidents the whole idea of nuclear
>>energy should be scrapped is utterly ridiculous and just the mentality
>>of the paranoid anti nuke loonies. If the same illogic were applied
>>elsewhere we would have no aircraft, no cars, etc.
>>
>>Half a dozen planes crashed, lets ban them all! A hundred cars crashed,
>>lets ban them all! Total nonsense...
>>
>>Planes crash, the causes are studied and changes are incorporated in
>>other planes to prevent the same accident from occurring again. Cars
>>crash and the causes are studied and changes are incorporated to help
>>prevent them. The shuttle blew up twice and both times the causes were
>>studied, changes made and the shuttle flew (or will fly) again. This is
>>how progress is made.
>>
>
>
>
> Let's see if I understand your logic correctly: Anyone who
> doesn't agree with you that nuclear power is the end all
> and be all solution to all of humankind's problems is a
> whacko looney environut, right? They're all paranoid, right?

No, only the people who say "absolutely no new nukes, build coal plants
until Solar is viable" are the whacko looney environuts.

>
> At least plane crashes don't leave thousand square mile
> patches of the planet permanently uninhabitable like Chernobyl
> and Kyshtym did.

The US built exactly ONE experimental reactor of the type used at
Chernobyl, for the very reason that high-temperature gas cooled reactors
are not as inherently safe as PWR and BWR reactors. Furthermore,
Chernobyl was triggered by an improper procedure being conducted as an
"experiment."

Pete C. wrote:
> The problem is that CA didn't really deregulate their power, they only
> *half* deregulated it. It was their "deregulating" the retail and still
> regulating the wholesale that caused the whole thing to implode.

I thought it was the other way around; the state didn't care how much it
cost the producers to produce or buy wholesale, but it regulated the
selling price at a level far too low to cover costs.

clifto wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
> > The problem is that CA didn't really deregulate their power, they only
> > *half* deregulated it. It was their "deregulating" the retail and still
> > regulating the wholesale that caused the whole thing to implode.
>
> I thought it was the other way around; the state didn't care how much it
> cost the producers to produce or buy wholesale, but it regulated the
> selling price at a level far too low to cover costs.

That's more or less it, just a different way of describing it. The mock
deregulation of the retail side let the consumer pick a producer, but
the prices were capped (still regulated), they made the suppliers
compete.

Either way it was phony deregulation and they're now paying the price
for trying to squeeze the suppliers.

Pete C.