jaws wrote:No one has mentionned that they are going to completely privatize their highway system sometime this year, meaning the government will no longer be subsidizing car travel.
ITER is going to come online sometime in the next decade, right in the harsh part of peak oil. That will provide abundant electricity for all of the EU, if the price is right. Not windy enough to keep Germany warm? Have some electricity courtesy of les frogs!
gg3 wrote:We have spent 200 billion dollars ($200,000,000,000.00) per year, total presently over $400 billion, on the Iraq quagmire, clinging to the old paradigm. The United States government could have *given that money away* to the utilities to build nuclear reactors and windfarms, and it would have translated into 400 gigawatts of electric power ($1-million per megawatt for nuclear and wind).
Any public road is subsidized car travel since money had to be taxed to build the road. Doesn't matter if it was gas taxes or income taxes. So maybe I was exaggerating, they will no longer subsidize car travel on highways, only on regular roads.Devil wrote:What the hell are you talking about?
1. The French government has never subsidised car travel. They may have bled motorists dry in swingeing fuel taxes and highway tolls, though. Believe me, motorists have paid for the highway system many times over. Furthermore, the highways in France are relatively car-free outside the conurbations because it is cheaper to take the TGV for long distances.
Well what do you think they wanted the prototype so bad for? To decorate the place? No, they want to build a lot of the things with ITER's technology once they get it to work.2. ITER is not scheduled to produce any electricity. It is an experiment to see whether it is possible to extract more energy out of it than is put into it. Even if your hypothesis were the case, it would not produce abundant electricity for more than a small town. "The whole of the EU" is just downright stupid.
An anonymous Deconstructionist wrote:if we did not spend that rediculous sum of money on the war in iraq, the oil markets may have been opened up to trading in euros, causing the obliteration of the value of the dollar. then that 400 billion spent on wind energy development would not buy nearly as much. now if we were spending on the war and at the same time building an alternative energy future so that we could eventually stop making war... that would be a bit nicer twist on an unarguably horrible story...
CS wrote:deconstructionist wrote:if we did not spend that rediculous sum of money on the war in iraq, the oil markets may have been opened up to trading in euros, causing the obliteration of the value of the dollar
Z wrote:France is now in a slow state of social and political disintegration. I don't think we will be the 'center of civilization' anytime.
Z wrote:I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear.
rogerhb wrote:Mais, on le brightside, pas de LePenn a cote de le helm. Est ce que il mort?
Z wrote:Le Pen is old but still alive. He will probably run for the presidency in 2007.
mermaid wrote:nuclear powerplants, the fuel needed for these plants is not eternally usable, it is only 1 time recycleable and then it is waste, useless but dangerous. there is a way of putting it in the ground under saltlayers, but out of sight out of mind?!
mermaid wrote:and how about the worldstock uranium? it is also a natural source and able to runout....does anyone know how much uranium there is in the world? because I've heard that only 0.3% of it is suitable for powerplants?!
mermaid wrote:and i don't believe in meltproof, a mistake is made quickly, in Chernobyl they also said nothing could happen...
mermaid wrote:nuclear powerplants, the fuel needed for these plants is not eternally usable, it is only 1 time recycleable and then it is waste, useless but dangerous. there is a way of putting it in the ground under saltlayers, but out of sight out of mind?!
and how about the worldstock uranium? it is also a natural source and able to runout....does anyone know how much uranium there is in the world? because I've heard that only 0.3% of it is suitable for powerplants?!
and i don't believe in meltproof, a mistake is made quickly, in Chernobyl they also said nothing could happen...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests