Homestead mailing list

["Lynda" <lurine AT softcom.net>]

Original Message -----
From: ted <music AT thenightshades.com>
>
> I don't understand the details, and would like to learn more, but it seems
> like a decommisioned reactor is a 24/7 project- but for how long? Is it
ever
> really safe to walk away and leave it unattended?

***They are supposed to be moving all spent nuclear fuel to the Yucca
Mountains.  Hasn't happened and probably won't, so these plants will be
sitting there for generations.
>
> I read a few years back that hundreds of dirty coal plants were being put
> into action nationwide. Looking at the Schwarzenegger plan, they don't
think
> they can push a coal plant in CA past the voters there so they intend to
> muscle many into nearby states (not OR as far as I can see). Just like
they
> diverted the Colorado.
>
> The reason I'm calling them dirty coal plants is because, according to the
> SF Chronicle lead story, if it's credible, they could make ones that turn
> the exhaust into a gas that have virtually no particulate emissions. I
> wonder is that coal gas, a useful fuel I believe? Or if it's a slight of
> hand like the electric car where there's no emissions there but emissions
as
> usual somewhere else? The story was the front page lead story and entitled
> "Importing Power, Exporting Pollution". This was in mid-May. It was pretty
> rough on the plan. Ominously, the article stated that the only thing that
> would convince CA voters to approve in-state coal plants was more rolling
> blackouts. No mention was made in this article that the rolling blackouts
> were a contrived scam by Enron to raise prices exponentially, but that has
> been made clear in the paper in the past.
>
> I also noticed an article in the business section where some CA city was
> paying enron $40,000,000 to avoid the possibility of going to court and
> losing $80,000,000 that Enron was suing for breach of contract. The city
> cancelled their contract when it turned out Enron was a bunch of crooks.
> Apparently, that is not entirely safe legal ground for cancelling a
> contract, if it wasn't you that they ripped off! Or who knows what the
> shenanigens are, but I was shocked to see that the city (a good sized,
one,
> Santa Clara maybe?) was capitulating to Enron even now- Enron must be in
> pretty good shape to force such a situation. Amazing.
>
***Well, the problem with folks that have Enron or Halliburton contracts is
that the prez has this inclination to step in and force the fulfillment of
the contracts.  He did this in India and he, rather Cheney, has been doing
it in CA with the help of Schwartzenazi and that idiot Wilson who was the
"brains" behind the "energy crisis."

I was talking to my Dad who was high up the food chain in electric for P. G.
& E. and he said the whole energy thing is a crock.  If the same
restrictions were put on businesses that were done in the 70s CA wouldn't
need anymore power, and, in fact, would need to import less!

He said that P. G. & E. had been all set to send all its customers big
rebates if they converted to flourescent bulbs but the Wilson deal brought
that to a screeching halt.  they were all set to give businesses a cut in
their rates if they reduced their lighting by half and set the theromstat to
78 for summers.  The gov also nixed that one.  I mean, ah gee, all his buds
wouldn't be making the big bucks from stealing power plants.

Doing all the things he recommended, even with an electric dryer, a well,
forced air (which we don't use much except for about 10 minutes on deep
freeze mornings), 24 cf freezer, fish tanks, computers, electric fence,
etc., our last bill for electricity was $32.

Lynda
-----
>