• Howdy! we're looking for donations to finish custom knowledgebase software for this forum. Please see our Funding drive thread

WSJ Article on Evehicles in Texas.

sabrewalt

100 W
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
164
Wall Street Journal Aritcle.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121746229279198963.html?mod=yhoofront

You Know Gas Prices
Are High When Texans
Start Driving Golf Carts
Low-Speed Electric Vehicles Catch On;
Peters Family Jaunts in the Land of Giants
By ANA CAMPOY
July 31, 2008; Page A1

HOUSTON -- In the garage where chiropractor Rick Peters once parked his Dodge pickup, two tiny electric cars now sit back-to-back next to his wife's small SUV.

For trips to work, to run errands or visit friends, Dr. Peters, 43 years old, and his wife, Kris, hop into the munchkin-size cars while their old gas guzzlers gather dust. Admittedly, it's cramped inside the miniautos, which move along city streets at just 25 miles per hour. But the Peterses are converts to their low-speed vehicles.


As more families struggle to cope with high prices at the pump, the Peters, in Texas, have stowed away their regular gas guzzler in favor of a tiny, electric car.
"It makes so much sense for getting around. We go everywhere in it," says Mrs. Peters, 41.

It's a sure sign electric cars have a future when they're catching on in Texas. Others here, too, are abandoning the family car and driving to the office in what appear to be fancy little golf carts. Small battery-powered vehicles have been on the market for years but have mainly been used by workers driving around factories and university campuses.

The small cars are powered by batteries charged by plugging them into regular 110-volt house current. Though they do look like golf carts, they have heftier frames and more powerful engines. Now, with high gasoline prices driving booming sales, many are going to ordinary folks like the Peterses, who have fallen in love with gasoline-free transportation.


Orders at ZAP, a Santa Rosa, Calif., maker of small electric cars, have exploded to about 50 a day from just five six months ago. Shipments at Chrysler LLC's Global Electric Motorcars, or GEM, which made the Peterses' cars, have jumped 30% from last year's second quarter, with some of its 150 dealerships around the country tripling their sales.

Switching to tiny electric cars requires some big adjustments. With three children, the Peterses must use both their little cars when they take family outings. Every trip is an adventure into the land of the giants where they're dwarfed in traffic by SUVs and trucks. They've had to learn how far -- about 30 miles -- they can go on a single charge. The night they got their first car, they rousted a friend dressed in his pajamas for a test drive and he wound up having to help them push the car home.

The cars aren't for long-distance travel. On average, Andrew Kunev, also of Houston, can go about 25 miles on one charge in his Tic Tac-shaped three-wheeled electric car, which is technically a motorcycle and goes up to 40 mph. He sometimes plugs in his car at friends' homes for a refresher charge while he visits.

To fit his 6-foot-2 frame into the tiny driver's compartment so that he can see properly out the windshield, Mr. Kunev has to recline in his seat.

MORE ON ELECTRIC VEHICLES



• Video: Electric Bicycle Against Human Power
• Bicycle Review: OHM Cycle's Man-Machine HybridIt's a price he doesn't mind paying considering the gas savings -- more than $100 a month -- and the unexpected bonuses. "You wouldn't think it, but it's a chick-magnet," says the unmarried, 40-year-old chemical engineer, adding that women -- and pretty much everybody else, too -- approach him to talk about his unusual car.

Local Sensation

Owners now for two years, Elaine Triplett and her husband are pioneers in their small East Texas hometown of Palestine, where their tiny electric pickup is a local sensation and has inspired two other people they know to buy electric cars. At the request of her supermarket, she drove the gasoline-free vehicle into the store and parked it next to the produce section for Earth Day.

The Tripletts decided it made financial sense to buy the electric truck even when gasoline was costing them less than $2 a gallon. Their 9-foot-long truck is big enough for all their needs, including hauling lumber for a renovation project, and bringing home a 9-foot Christmas tree.

The Peterses have experienced their own neighborhood celebrity in the two months they've owned their GEM electric cars. On a recent trip to the doughnut shop, they met up with people snapping pictures with cellphones. "Everybody looks at you and waves," marveled 8-year-old Alex Peters. The family has been followed home by curious strangers. Other drivers have jumped out of their big cars at stoplights to run over and ask them about their vehicles.

Laws governing the roadworthiness of the little autos vary by state. In Texas, they're legal to drive only on streets with speed limits no higher than 35.

But some owners modify engines so the cars can travel much faster, and a few audacious drivers take them out on the highway. The Texas Department of Transportation recently got a call from a flabbergasted policeman who had stopped a "golf cart" on the freeway, says Kim Sue Lia Perkes, a spokeswoman for the agency. Starting Sept. 1, the department will no longer issue license plates for the tiny vehicles to dissuade drivers from using them like regular cars.

The Peterses' cars get about 30 miles from a full charge, which at about 15 cents per kilowatt hour, amounts to a 60-cent fill-up, or two cents a mile. Compare that with 20 cents a mile for a car that goes 20 miles on one $4 gallon of gasoline. Dr. Peters's chiropractic practice is just a few miles from his home, so he has no problem taking neighborhood streets to get there.

Enjoying the Breeze

Electric cars like the Peterses' can cost from about $7,000 to more than $18,000, depending on the model and accessories, though they paid about $10,000 altogether for the two cars, which they bought used off the Internet. Although the cars share many features with their bigger, gasoline-powered brethren, including blinkers and windshield wipers, they are decidedly more basic. The Peterses' cars don't have air conditioning or even doors -- something that at first made Mrs. Peters particularly nervous when transporting the children. With the kids safely belted in, now she sees the extra breeze as an advantage in the Houston summer heat. The cars make for a bouncy ride along rough streets, and emit a whirring noise that seems to attract barking dogs.

Sharing the road with bigger cars requires extra caution and alertness, say owners. And drivers of normal-size cars sometimes get impatient with the slower, tinier vehicles. Dr. Peters recalls one driver who screamed an expletive-laced version of "get that thing off the road." Generally, though, faster drivers just pass him by. Then, Dr. Peters says, he usually catches up to
 
That's funny I love the quote about you know EV's have a chance when they are driving them in Texas....
I wish these GEM's had a better battery 30mile range at 25MPH isn't the best advertising...they gotta be using lead-acid batt's for that...they should at least offer an upgrade to the more expensive Li-Ion batts.

Daniel Neumansky
Alameda CA
 
Gas just came down to 3.99 and 9/10ths at my local costco. Everyone's breathing a sigh of relief, but I just get so exasperated by the lemming-esk response to our ridiculous dependence on foreign sources of energy and the ridiculous profits made by oil conglomerates, when they all should be public utility companies in the first place --regulated, held accountable and answerable to the everyone instead of essentially no one.

The Gem car was not designed for the type of use outlined in this story. I was made for a very specific market whose use keeps it's occupants, for the most part, out of harm's way. Specifically, theme parks, colleges,industrial plants...essentially private property use. There was a car about 10 years ago that could exceed everything the gem can do in a safe and acceptable way. Where is that car? (Oh, sorry! Not enough demand to make an instant profit. The government and the oil companies made us an offer we couldn't refuse, so we crushed every last one of them. Really sorry about that. We just couldn't afford to have our subsidies pulled and the 100s of millions of cash contributions really sealed the deal for us. Wait til 2010, we'll have another car ready to go, just in time to keep us from going completely broke.)

That being said, it's obvious electric transportation is on the horizon. What we need to do now, is to develop systems and methods of personal energy harvesting and storage for the sole purpose of charging our electric vehicles, instead of plugging into the grid. Though I'm not a proponent of turning our backs to the grid, I guess I am pessimistic enough to anticipate an "imaginary" electric energy shortage based on demand derived from increased electric vehicles "plugging in" --that enables the utility companies to dramatically raise the cost of energy per kilowatt hour, driving the cost of operating EVs near the cost of ICE in no time at all.

I know I'm in a dark place and on a big rant...., but I feel like we're just the cash cows getting milked til we drop, then forklifted into the processing plant for our final contribution to somebody's bottom line.

To head the crisis off at the pass, we need to build systems of personal solar energy collection and storage. When you get home from work, you plug in to this extra-structure and charge your car up for your next 50 - 60 miles of local commute and erranding. Impact to the grid, nothing. Cost beyond installation, minimal. Whining from public utilities about decreased demand -- maximized. On the other hand, utilities want use to build solar collection that feeds the grid, and they'll credit us at a specific rate per Kw/Hr. When we need power, they'll sell it back to us. At a profit. Certainly, getting into new thread territory....

Seriously, why can't even the WSJ do a serious story on electric transportation? This was more or less a commercial for Gem, a glorified golf cart. IMHO, not a long term solution.... Just lazy lazy thinking.

T
 
Dateline Dallas:
Well I took my Ezip Ebike three miles down the road to a Starbucks today for a brief meeting. We sat outside...it was early so the temp was not too bad yet...and about eight people came up to me to inquire about the bike...the battery is so obvious...I let two guys take a whirl around the parking lot. Dr Currie owes me commissions today on at least two sales. People were typing info about Ebikes into their Blackberries. Yes, EVs have a real future if people in Dallas are looking at these with serious interest.

Yesterday at a bike shop near here, a large one, I was getting some things and the guy told me their business has never been better.

He said it was when it hit $4 that things suddenly went haywire.
 
Rant away, dude. It's pretty clear to me that the order finally came down from on high not to bid it on up anymore. Those CEO's figured out a few years ago that higher prices made them higher profits since we just kept on bitching and filling up just the same. Now we are driving less.Oh Oh better leth the price fall some or we'll lose money like we did in the 80's. Those fat cats just had to keep pushing till they saw just how much we would take of this crap.
 
Dog!, Thanks for permission to rant. I swear, I took my lo=pressor this morning, so my Blood Pressure is holding steady.

You're right. The fat cats did push until they found the ceiling. Now that they know where it is, they'll hold it there as long as they can. And you know what? That's their job. But what the heck is the matter with us? We own our share of the blame. They cram giant gas guzzling trucks and SUVs into the marketplace, and we gobble them up, driving down the road at 75 miles an hour just to keep up with the big rigs who are pushing 80 themselves. It's insane I tell ya! :shock: One hand on the steering wheel, one foot buried in the floor board, the other hand feeding our fat faces with caffienated sugar coffee while trying to dial in some disgusting rap music with our elbow. One eye on the road, the other on the GPS--because who the hell knows where we're going so fast? The sub woofer says, "consume, consume, consume."

I'm sorry. I love people. But if you landed on this planet for the first time and took a look at people, how would you classify us as a life form? I remember the first time I saw The Matrix, and the agent described to morpheous what he really thought of people; calling us a virus--a disease. Consuming everything in our path until there is nothing left. I remember thinking. Crap! That hits a little too close to the bone.

Rant concluded. Keep riding those electric bikes! Pay them back. Use less by slowing down. Stay right, do whats right. Take smaller bites. :D

T
 
The price is going down due to decreased demand, There is even suddenly a bit of a backup, that is causing some problems. A guy I work with has a "hobby" of studying about oil tankers ad nauseum and he invests in ones that land 5 year contracts. He says it is a great investment and very little to no risk, since the tankers have everything lined out for that time period. He has *so far* for several years been making a lot of money doing this. I can see by looking at the history of the tankers he invests in that he is on to something.

Anyway, the point is, he said a couple weeks ago, that a bunch of these tankers were sitting idle in port, because they had nowhere to go with the oil! Time to lower the price a bit and get the people pumping again....:wink:

If some people didn't suffer so much and if it didn't throw the cost of food out of whack, I wish gas would go to 5 or 6 bucks a gallon, at least long enough to get some alternatives going. I am afraid it may all die down and "the man" will continue to bleed us and pollute the water and air with petro chemicals
 
EMF said:
If some people didn't suffer so much and if it didn't throw the cost of food out of whack, I wish gas would go to 5 or 6 bucks a gallon, at least long enough to get some alternatives going. I am afraid it may all die down and "the man" will continue to bleed us and pollute the water and air with petro chemicals
I agree! I worry that without real pain, we won't make the fundamental, necessary changes to our infrastructure and attitudes. But the effect on the cost of food is really unfortunate, especially for those with less financial means to start with.
 
I wish gas would go to 5 or 6 bucks a gallon
EMF, thanks for letting us know how you really feel. Let me just tell you though, wishing financial ruin on others is I sign of a demented mind. It's one thing to want pain for yourself, but to want it on others is just down righ evil. :evil: If you really believe that way, just go down to the local gas station and PAY THEM $5-6/gallon. I'm sure they'll take your money just to make you feel better. Just don't intend to make everyone else pay for your good feeling.
 
We (socially) have been killing ourselves for the prestige of oil's power for decades. We will continue to do so until conspicuous-consumption is replaced by conservation as the modus of the elite.

Don't hold your breath for that to happen anytime soon.
 
Sorry but the fat, lazy American will not change his habit until gasoline hits $20 a gallon. Watch Exxon-Chevron-Shell get us leveled nicely at $5 per gallon for a coupla years and watch us go right out and buy Hummers again. Fantasy? I lived through this in 1973. Oh sure we all had Chevettes and little things for a while. Then Ronnie Raygun came in and made everyone feel warm and fuzzy about greed, bigger cars, consume, consume. Just watch what happens in a year when Houston Big Oil levels us back to $3 or $4 per gallon.
 
The scarcity or price of gas will only make it more prestigious to have it, until there is a change of perspective...

The smarter move IMO, is to appeal to the defiant nature of the average American: the biggest boat or hummer owner can show-off their monetary wealth, but they can also be regarded as Big-Oil's bitch.
 

Attachments

  • daddy1.jpg
    daddy1.jpg
    60.2 KB · Views: 1,468
dallasfoto said:
Sorry but the fat, lazy American will not change his habit until gasoline hits $20 a gallon. Watch Exxon-Chevron-Shell get us leveled nicely at $5 per gallon for a coupla years and watch us go right out and buy Hummers again. Fantasy? I lived through this in 1973. Oh sure we all had Chevettes and little things for a while. Then Ronnie Raygun came in and made everyone feel warm and fuzzy about greed, bigger cars, consume, consume. Just watch what happens in a year when Houston Big Oil levels us back to $3 or $4 per gallon.

"When cigarettes hit 50 cents a pack..I'll quit!"
"When cigarettes hit a dollar a pack..I'll quit!"
"When cigarettes hit 2 dollars a pack..I'll quit!"

Same thing with gas. Pretty soon people get used to it and keep up the same habit. Especially when it goes crazy and rises sharply, then comes back down about 25% from the peak. Suddenly 3.50 cent a gallon is a "bargain"
 
EMF said:
"When cigarettes hit 50 cents a pack..I'll quit!"
"When cigarettes hit a dollar a pack..I'll quit!"
"When cigarettes hit 2 dollars a pack..I'll quit!"

Haha... too true. I quit around $5.50/pack (Organic Red Spirits) on 12/26/06. That was a 15 year pack a day habit. Hardest thing I've ever done in my life. Period. I still think about those lovely little cancer sticks all the time, but haven't relapsed once thank all that's holy. I equate it to inlining a weak 10 amp fuse with a giant A123 pack. You just gotta pull as hard as you can that last time and then just let the fuse blow and never replace it. Sure you'll forever yearn for that power, but at least you won't kill yourself. :lol:
 
mcstar said:
I wish gas would go to 5 or 6 bucks a gallon
EMF, thanks for letting us know how you really feel. Let me just tell you though, wishing financial ruin on others is I sign of a demented mind. It's one thing to want pain for yourself, but to want it on others is just down righ evil. :evil: If you really believe that way, just go down to the local gas station and PAY THEM $5-6/gallon. I'm sure they'll take your money just to make you feel better. Just don't intend to make everyone else pay for your good feeling.
If you read my post all the way thru...(I know it's hard for you) I think you will see that you owe me a public apology. You know- this part:
EMF said:
If some people didn't suffer so much and if it didn't throw the cost of food out of whack, I wish gas would go to 5 or 6 bucks a gallon, at least long enough to get some alternatives going. I am afraid it may all die down and "the man" will continue to bleed us and pollute the water and air with petro chemicals

Do you ever get tired of making an ass out of yourself? :lol:
 
I gotta say, a part of me saddened when gas came down about fifty cents out here in San Diego- -for fear complacency will sustain the status quo. But another part of me was relieved because I'm dying out here. My clients aren't doing anything and the economy's come to a screeching halt. Not good for the self employed! We're a month away from true ruin.

However, while at a party the other night, my brother and Sister in law were going on about how happy they were that gas finally came back down. I emphatically asserted that gas is still $2.75 more per gallon than it was only 700 days ago. They mocked me with their faces -- those mocking mockers! Calm down! Relax, they were thinking. "Foolish lemmings!" I replied in my mind.....

Before we attack one another, though, let's consider the reality that, politically, nothing happens outside of a crisis. I have dear friends, who to this day, deny that our misuse of natural resources has had any, not even a little, impact on our climate. They'll be standing knee deep in sea water on the Las Vegas strip and still deny we've had any impact at all. The point is not wishing suffering on anyone. The agony is knowing that there is a far better way. A healthier and more responsible way. A way that removes us from the hooks of our enemies. Yet a way that our leaders will not embrace while their special interest buddies are paying them not to care. Only real crisis can pry them from their clutches, when they can no longer ignore the obvious and maintain the appearance of concern for the greater good. Sad, but true.

T
 
I'm not sure I get your point EMF. Are you saying you wish harm on others only if it doesn't hurt???

I agree with you Thomas...
I emphatically asserted that gas is still $2.75 more per gallon than it was only 700 days ago.

The price is highly inflated, this is a fact that we've allowed to due to political policies that are preventing people from acting on initiaties that work. In the 60's we were on a path to energy independance (everyone likes that term nowadays) but they were very close, then the green peace guys stopped the initive because they said it was harmful to the environment. Yet, in 40years of operating nuclear plants, the US has had a spotless track record. Noone glows green, no vast vistas of vegitation have been destroy. So, what is our excuse for not building more nuclear plants now? It seems to me the E-car guys should be getting all excited about nuclear. Yet, few have such a vision now. Most are have been so swayed by the negative mentality that has been created that they won't even consider the realities of the technology. What's going on with us that we cannot even commit to doing things we all agree work and have negligable negatives?
 
Even if nuclear were totally safe, it is yet another finite energy source. We are running out of uranium, too. As far as wind power killing birds, is it really a lot of birds? I mean is a species extinct or even reduced because of wind farms???? We either give up all energy sources and use horses or bikes with no power or find something that works.
 
mcstar said:
I'm not sure I get your point EMF. Are you saying you wish harm on others only if it doesn't hurt???

No my point is you misquoted me and then made an ass out of yourself *again* by calling me demented and evil remember? I know it's been a few minutes. Time to beg for forgiveness. You are at best a piece of work. And at worst- most likely a troll :lol:
 
Perhaps you think it's stupid TD, but in reality you're bringing attention to my point. In all three of those incidents (if you care to do your research), you'll find that no one died and nothing of consequence was damaged (besides the machinery at the plants). The Holy Environment was not harmed. The safety protocols and designs used have been refined and the experiences were used to improve the designs of the plants. What we learned went into the designs of later plants. In fact, after Fermi-1 reactors we no longer built and reactors using sodium as the coolant in the US. Do your research on cold water reactors and you'll learn they are inherently safe. The causes of runaway reactions have been addressed and the reactors now fail in a safe state. Just to drive home the point, let me state that again... in all the 40years of US nuclear power, no one has been killed by the technology. More birds have been killed by windmills in the last 5 minutes than have been harmed reactors in 40years. It appears however that many here in this country have bought into the negative propaganda hook-line and sinker. Way to be led.
 
mcstar said:
Perhaps you think it's stupid TD, but in reality you're bringing attention to my point. In all three of those incidents (if you care to do your research), you'll find that no one died and nothing of consequence was damaged (besides the machinery at the plants). The Holy Environment was not harmed. The safety protocols and designs used have been refined and the experiences were used to improve the designs of the plants. What we learned went into the designs of later plants. In fact, after Fermi-1 reactors we no longer built and reactors using sodium as the coolant in the US. Do your research on cold water reactors and you'll learn they are inherently safe. The causes of runaway reactions have been addressed and the reactors now fail in a safe state. Just to drive home the point, let me state that again... in all the 40years of US nuclear power, no one has been killed by the technology. More birds have been killed by windmills in the last 5 minutes than have been harmed reactors in 40years. It appears however that many here in this country have bought into the negative propaganda hook-line and sinker. Way to be led.

Well folks...there you have it! :lol: I especially like the "we" part. :roll: Dude- you have been seriously brainwashed by some organisation I suspect you worked for-for too long.

Read it and weep McStar: http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/kyotonuc.htm

Climate Change Briefing "Nuclear power is no solution to climate change: exposing the myths"

"A clever man solves a problem; a wise man avoids it." Einstein

Nuclear-Nuclear: Exposing the myths

The nuclear industry is hoping that concern over climate change will result in support for nuclear power. However, even solely on the grounds of economic criteria it offers poor value for money in displacing fossil fuel plant. Further, with its high cost, long construction time, high environmental risk and problems resulting from waste management, it is clear that nuclear power does not offer a viable solution to climate change. Rather a mixture of energy efficiency and renewable energy offers a quicker, more realistic and sustainable approach to reducing CO2 emissions.

Exposing the myths 1: Nuclear power is economical and cost effective

The full costs of nuclear power have been seriously underestimated by all countries which have the technology, and it is only recently that the true costs have begun to come to light. The hidden costs of waste disposal, decommissioning and provision for accidents have never been adequately accounted for, resulting in a massive drain upon economies. This drain will continue for many years to come as the expensive and dangerous task of nuclear decommissioning gets underway.

Privatisation and liberalisation of the market in the UK, has led to the true costs of nuclear power being exposed. It has become clear that nuclear power cannot exist in a competitive energy market without significant subsidy from Government. This process is now being followed around the world with investors being unwilling to accept the high cost and risks associated with nuclear power. Moreover, if fully comprehensive insurance was required to cover all of the risks of nuclear accidents, the cost of electricity from nuclear power would increase many times from the present level.

Reactor decommissioning costs also remain a major uncertainty. In the UK, for example, the cost of dealing with the unwanted debris of the nuclear industry is officially estimated at about US$70 billion. Of this, just US$22 billion is covered in secure funding arrangements, with the remaining US$48 billion (almost 70%) likely to be paid for by taxpayers. The nuclear industry's claim that, "In most countries, the full costs of waste management and plant decommissioning will be funded from reserves accumulated from current revenues" [1] is clearly untrue.

Countries, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, are continuing to build new nuclear plants even though it has been shown that investment in energy efficiency measures is the quickest and safest way to tackle their energy crises. For example, the nuclear power plants proposed to replace the remaining reactors at Chernobyl have consistently been shown not to be the least-cost option.

Also, in terms of cost-effectiveness in reducing CO2 emissions, nuclear power fairs very poorly. In 1995, after a year-long, exhaustive review of the case for nuclear power, the UK Government concluded that nuclear power is one of the least cost-effective ways in which to cut CO2 emissions. In the USA improving electricity efficiency is nearly seven times more cost effective than nuclear power for obtaining emissions reductions [2].

Nuclear power one of the least effective and most expensive ways in which to tackle climate change.

/CUT

Exposing the myths 3: Nuclear power is safe


Problems of security, safety and environmental impact have been perennial issues for the nuclear industry. Many countries have decided against the development of nuclear power on these grounds, but radioactive contamination is no respector of national borders and nuclear power plants threaten the health and well-being of all surrounding nations and environments. There is also the very serious problems of nuclear proliferation and trafficking.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) view is that if nuclear power were to be used extensively to tackle climate change, "The security threat ... would be colossal".

Just one month after The Economist, a British magazine, had declared in its lead article that the technology was "as safe as a chocolate factory" (1986), there followed a catastrophic nuclear accident at Chernobyl. The accident caused an immediate threat to the lives of 130,000 people living within a 30 kilometre radius who had to be evacuated (and who have been permanently relocated) and 300-400 million people in 15 nations were put at risk of radiation exposure. Forecasts of additional cancer deaths attributable to the Chernobyl accident range from 5,000 to 75,000 and beyond. The nuclear industry argues that the problems in the former Soviet Union are different to those in developed countries, but the United States itself had a serious accident at Three Mile Island in 1979. Whilst the new European Pressurised Reactor and the fusion programmes are being promoted as offering safer operation, no form of nuclear power technology is totally without risk of a major accident. With public opinion strongly set against nuclear power, it would be far better to invest in renewable forms of energy which have widespread public support. The development of new nuclear technology would mean spending huge amounts of money going down another nuclear road, with the prospect of finding the same type of problems and public opposition.

Recent in-depth studies in the United States challenge the claim that exposure to low-level doses of radiation is safe. The health and safety of employees, local communities and the contamination of the environment are genuine risks. A recent study (completed August 1997) funded by the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, examined the health and mortality of 14,095 workers from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The study found "strong evidence of a positive association between low-level radiation and cancer mortality" [5]. As of 1990, 26.9% of deaths were due to cancer.

The exposure risk to workers in the uranium mining industry is also great.
 
tylerdurden paraphrased by tylerdurden said:
Mcstar,
You are the stoopidest f**en idiot on this board.

F**tards like you will wailt til people are dead, then claim "operator error".

Fermi-1
Three Mile Island
Davis Besse

I should have politely written:

McStar,
With all the brilliant people on this board, it seems reasonable to have a retard like you to balance things out.

Claims that the nukes in the US are inherently safe are total BS... if you really believe they aresafe, you make yourself first-mate on the ship of fools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Fermi_Nuclear_Generating_Station
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_mile_island
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis_Besse

BTW, After people are dead, it's too late.

Regarding wind turbines, new designs already in service do not kill birds.
 
Let's think about what you guys are saying. Yes, there are people who have written all kinds of negative things about each and every technology that's come out. That doesn't mean all of what's been said is correct. I once heard that e-bikes can electrocute you in the rain too. Many of the claims to the expense of nuclear power are extremely exaggerated. How do I know this? That's the question you should be asking. When's the last time you were privy to the actual costs and revenue of an operating plant? Why is it that none of these claims come backed by actual numbers? So, how much does the typical nuclear power company actual pay in insurance? Has anyone thought to ask that? Some of what you read is complete bullsh!t, some of it is propganda and some is written for people who want to see the boogy man around every corner. We have a lot of those nowadays. Then sometimes, every once in a while, if you're paying attention, you might find a little bit of truth. Never so much that the common man will really understand, but enough to allude to the facts not adding up. Here and there on occasion from people who actually know what they are talking about things come out that show you when you're not quite hitting the mark. The truth is rarely shoved into your face. More often it's sitting somewhere waiting for someone with the wisdom to ask the right questions.
 
mcstar said:
Let's think about what you guys are saying. Yes, there are people who have written all kinds of negative things about each and every technology that's come out. That doesn't mean all of what's been said is correct. I once heard that e-bikes can electrocute you in the rain too. Many of the claims to the expense of nuclear power are extremely exaggerated. How do I know this? That's the question you should be asking. When's the last time you were privy to the actual costs and revenue of an operating plant? Why is it that none of these claims come backed by actual numbers? So, how much does the typical nuclear power company actual pay in insurance? Has anyone thought to ask that? Some of what you read is complete bullsh!t, some of it is propganda and some is written for people who want to see the boogy man around every corner. We have a lot of those nowadays. Then sometimes, every once in a while, if you're paying attention, you might find a little bit of truth. Never so much that the common man will really understand, but enough to allude to the facts not adding up. Here and there on occasion from people who actually know what they are talking about things come out that show you when you're not quite hitting the mark. The truth is rarely shoved into your face. More often it's sitting somewhere waiting for someone with the wisdom to ask the right questions.

Still waiting for an apology. No balls eh? I figured as much. Now, just run along and troll on another forum. No one is buying this propaganda your spewing anyway.
 
Back
Top