> Look I personally think "global warming" is not at all concrete
> science and has become a platform for many democrats, which only
> further polarizes it, and I am not sure of the impact human
> consumption of fossil fuels has on the earth, but that is beside the
> point because the human toll of our energy use is what is most
> alarming. The plant meltdown at Chernobyl killed thousands, destroyed
> a city for centuries and that almost happened in the US at 3-Mile
> Island which would have had far greater devastation. Or how about the
> needless deaths
> and wars all in our quest to secure energy sources in regions of
> severe conflict? Beyond that there are oil spills that kill marine
> life, oil leaking and dumping that seeps into public ground water and
> so much more.

> Like I said the jury is undecided on the facts of "global warming" but
> there is not debating the danger of oil consumption and an
> overabundance of co2 being a harmful.

> On Dec 9, 12:11 pm, sparkmaker <torta...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The house of cards is starting to collapse, algoreleone and co's lies
> > and deception are finally being exposed for the connivers that they
> > are!

> > Science was not put in its rightful place, it was high jacked by
> > ideology lust for power and non reason!

> > I am LOL because the connivers and their enablers are having a hard
> > time with the climategate documents being circulated, documents that
> > prove they fudge the data to make it show what they want to show. HA
> > HA HA HA he he he HA HA HA HA!

> > Suckers!!!!!!!!!!!!!

> > On Dec 5, 2:48 pm, iy...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > > Lies about solar energy still make the headlines, while reality is
> > > ignored. Viable energy alternatives are only a matter of desire, not a
> > > matter of technology. Everything is there, ready to go. Everything,
> > > that is, except the will.

> > > Yes, the Will to Power now has new meaning.

> > > All we have to do is reach out and pluck the fruit dangling ripe
> > > before us. Perhaps it is a bit obscured by the smog produced by
> > > present energy forms or the affects of their fumes on people's brains,
> > > but it is available nonetheless.

> Science was not put in its rightful place, it was high jacked by
> ideology lust for power and non reason!

> I am LOL because the connivers and their enablers are having a hard
> time with the climategate documents being circulated, documents that
> prove they fudge the data to make it show what they want to show. HA
> HA HA HA he he he HA HA HA HA!

> Suckers!!!!!!!!!!!!!

> On Dec 5, 2:48 pm, iy...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > Lies about solar energy still make the headlines, while reality is
> > ignored. Viable energy alternatives are only a matter of desire, not a
> > matter of technology. Everything is there, ready to go. Everything,
> > that is, except the will.

> > Yes, the Will to Power now has new meaning.

> > All we have to do is reach out and pluck the fruit dangling ripe
> > before us. Perhaps it is a bit obscured by the smog produced by
> > present energy forms or the affects of their fumes on people's brains,
> > but it is available nonetheless.

> Yes, the Will to Power now has new meaning.

> All we have to do is reach out and pluck the fruit dangling ripe
> before us. Perhaps it is a bit obscured by the smog produced by
> present energy forms or the affects of their fumes on people's brains,
> but it is available nonetheless.

> where did everyone go?

> where have all the regular comunist investors/traders gone?

> why did google change the format?

> On Nov 18, 2:32 am, "usawebb...@gmail.com"

> <computerservic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > YES - put all your money in "swine flu investment" and it will be
> > flushed out like going to the toilet!! LOL

> > It's a SCAAAAAAAAAAAAAM! To the 9th degree! Do some studies you fools!

> > On Nov 17, 7:13 pm, kfog <kevf...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > I bought back in with a few shares sub 1.50 .......  No hurry, I'm
> > > thinking they start making a little profit off there rev Q2 2010

> > > On Nov 10, 6:31 pm, frank nine <frankni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Frank was right! He's always right! long Suckers!- Hide quoted text -

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> It's a SCAAAAAAAAAAAAAM! To the 9th degree! Do some studies you fools!

> On Nov 17, 7:13 pm, kfog <kevf...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I bought back in with a few shares sub 1.50 .......  No hurry, I'm
> > thinking they start making a little profit off there rev Q2 2010

> > On Nov 10, 6:31 pm, frank nine <frankni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Frank was right! He's always right! long Suckers!- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> On Nov 10, 6:31 pm, frank nine <frankni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Frank was right! He's always right! long Suckers!- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> AS IF maintaining nuclear plants 24/7/365 forever, despite rain, snow,
> hurricanes, earthquakes, strikes, etc. could be assured...

> AS IF storing nuclear waste were not insurmountably dangerous...

> AS IF batteries were the only means of storage...

> AS IF national security counted for nothing...

> AS IF centralized electrical power with extension cords running all
> over the place were beautiful...

> AS IF 15% of 1300 times more energy than we use were not already
> enough...

> AS IF making and maintaining enemies in the world were not the result
> of present policies...

> AS IF humans were incapable of accepting better alternatives...

> FYI - We're putting solar on every building in our office right now.

> On Nov 5, 1:35 pm, lzepplin01 <kroac...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > First off, let’s take a look at some information from the EIA
> > government website (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/
> > epm_sum.html).  Figure one shows us that the United States generated
> > approximately 275 terawatts (275,000 GW) of electricity from August
> > 2008 – July 2009.  Of this, at least 68% is generated by burning
> > either coal, 44.7%, natural gas, 22.3%, or petroleum, 1.1% (figure
> > 2).  Nuclear is at 20.6%.
> > Now, let’s look at the costs associated with traditional (coal, NG,
> > petrol) generation, nuclear, and solar power.  The costs will be
> > divided into upfront costs (making the plant), cost of fuels or
> > batteries, external costs (damage to humans, ecosystems and the
> > environment and cost of relying on one source too much), and
> > feasibility.
> > I will start with traditional.
> > Upfront: there are estimates such as $1.83 billion for a 800-MW unit
> > in 2007, (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/business/worldbusiness/
> > 10iht-power.4.6593271.html  ,2007), $1.1-$1.2 billion for a 300-MW
> > unit,http://www.jsonline.com/business/29482814.html, 2008.  Let us
> > say, this is a rough estimate of course, that it would cost about $1.5
> > billion or so to construct a 500-MW unit on average.  This does not
> > seem unreasonable or biased.  NG plant these days go for $820 million
> > for a 880-MW plant (plus more to upgrade infrascructure),http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/jun/04/tva-build-gas-plant-east-ten...
> > , 2009), $400 million for a 600-MW plant,http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/company/cnn33268.htm
> > ,2003).  Let’s say the average plant costs $700 million to build and
> > produces about 700-MW.  Petrol plants are relatively rare, but some in
> > Saudi Arabia recently constructed cost $5 billion for 4,000-MW (http://www.power-technology.com/projects/shoaiba/ , 2001-2006)
> > Sum: traditional upfront costs are roughly $2.29 million, $1.0
> > million, and $1.25 million per megawatt generated per year for coal,
> > natural gas and petroleum, respectively, at full capacity.
> > Cost of fuel: depends.  Fossil fuel plants are generally about 36-48%
> > efficient, depending on the design and technology.  Let’s say the
> > average is a generous 42% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> > Fossil_fuel_power_plant#Supercritical_steam_plants).The going rate of
> > petrol these days is about $79/barrel (42 US gallons), but is
> > notoriously highly variable.  NG is going for $4.725 per MMBtu, and
> > coal is going for about $45 per short ton (http://www.eia.doe.gov/
> > cneaf/coal/page/coalnews/coalmar.html  , 2009) An important caveat: I
> > did not include the cost of transportation and distribution of the
> > fuels.  These are not irrelevant to the discussion, but for the sake
> > of time I wont go there. I will use today’s prices for the next
> > calculation, which is to get the amount of fuel needed per year at our
> > reference traditional power plants.
> > At our average oil plant, 500-MW, we need about 216.46 barrels per
> > hour running at 50% capacity.  That’s 1896219.5 barrel per year at 50%
> > capacity, or $149,801,341 per year or $599,205 per MW generated.
> > Our average NG plant, which produces 700-MW, needs 1695.8 MMBtu to run
> > at 50% capacity.  At $4.725 per MMBtu, this works out to be
> > $70,190,857.8 per year or $200,545.3 per MW generated.
> > Our average coal plant, which produces 500-MWh, needs 530,682.6 tons
> > of coal at 50% capacity with 42% efficiency.  This is $23,873,934.6
> > per year of coal, or $95,495.7 per MW.
> > Keep in mind that these are today’s prices, I do not include
> > transportation and distribution costs, a constant 50% output, and I
> > assume the same efficiency throughout.
> > External costs: that depends.  For petroleum, a barrel contains
> > roughly 317 kg of CO2, and our average plant will use 1,896,219.5
> > barrel per year and emit 601,101,581.5 kg of CO2.  That is
> > 2,404,406.33 per MW generated.
> > For NG, there are roughly 53.1065 kg CO2 per btu, which makes our
> > average plant emit 788,908,103.7 kg CO2 yearly, or 2,254,023.153 kg
> > per MW generated.
> > For coal, there are roughly 2594.5 kg per ton of CO2, which makes our
> > average coal plant emit 1,376,856,006 kg of co2, or a whopping
> > 5,507,424 kg co2 per MW generated.
> > Clearly, these are extremely high numbers on all accounts.
> > These do not take into account the negative externalities of
> > dependency on petroleum and natural gas coming from unstable
> > countries.  Plus, natural gas is a very active greenhouse gas, so
> > naturally mining it causes at least some increase in the loss of NG
> > into the atmosphere.  Coal is extremely dirty and polluting, though
> > the clean coal technology has made improvements.

> > Now for nuclear energy.
> > Upfront costs significantly more expensive initially than the
> > traditional generating methods at $5-15 billion. (http://
> > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> > Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants#Recent_construction_cost_estimates)
> > There are, just as with all other types of mainstream means of power
> > generation, a wide range of reactor sizes.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/
> > wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors) Let’s say that our power plant
> > generates one GWH total at 50% efficiency.  The tradeoff with nuclear
> > is that, though the plants cost 2-5x as much as conventional means,
> > they generate up to 2-4x as much electricity, are 100% clean with
> > respect to greenhouse gases, and do not rely on unstable foreign fuel
> > sources.
> > Cost of fuel:
> > The total process, including the raw uranium, the conversion,
> > enrichment, and fabrication of it to be used as a fuel is $1787 per kg
> > (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html). I’m assuming that
> > nuclear power has similar power efficiency, at 42%.  Now, Uranium-235
> > has about 10,275 MWh per pound, which means that our station will use
> > about 605 pounds, of uranium per year.  That’s about 274.4 kg, or
> > $490,352.8 per year for the fuel.  That’s $980 per MW generated.
> > Perhaps it would be useful to compare now.
> > Petrol cost per MW generated: $599,205
> > Coal cost per MW generated: $95,495.7
> > NG cost per MW generated: $200,545.3
> > Nuclear cost per MW generated: $980
> > Folks, there’s a ginormous difference here.  No CO2 generated, either
> > so I won’t even need to calculate that.  Of course, it takes energy
> > and resources to refine and mine uranium, but I feel these costs are
> > partly factored into the price of uranium.
> > Now the external costs could potentially be huge for nuclear.  Nuclear
> > radiation is extremely toxic for biological organisms within a couple
> > hundred mile area.  However, we have not had a recorded incident in
> > the United States or France, who has been predominantly nuclear for
> > decades and is currently 90% dependent on nuclear.  We have no
> > incidents, and technology has only gotten better.  Though the
> > possibility of a problem can’t be denied, it seems miniscule.  Now
> > what do we do with the waste?
> > Well there are a number of options.  First of all, the uranium can
> > sometimes be re-enriched and used again as fuel.  Second, the waste
> > can be safely stored in remote areas hundreds of feet below ground.
> > We can perform basic sonographic measurements of the geology
> > underground to make sure that there is no possibility for
> > contamination in water supplies or seepage.  Then the waste is stored
> > in high-tech containment containers, in a well-contained underground
> > room.  Once this is filled, cement can be poured into the hole to
> > permanently immobilize the radioactive waste-filled containers.  The
> > likelihood of contamination and subsequent ecological effects would
> > similarly be just about zero.  There are a number of other options,
> > such as evacuating the waste

> On Nov 11, 2:31 am, frank nine <frankni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Frank was right! He's always right! long Suckers!- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -