A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How much longer?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 10th 08, 09:42 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
gatt[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 193
Default How much longer?


A bigger reason that new oil refineries aren't being built, as well as
nuclear waste facilities, is that no one wants one near his playground.
Everyone wants a new refinery in someone else's backyard.


Yep. A case in point was San Jose when the new Cisco plant went in.
Sure it caused brownouts, but when it came time for a new power plant,
the Cisco people in city planning argued that a power plant in their
backyard would ruin the view for the workers at the factory.

As a result of that and the Enron shenanigans, electricity rates in
Oregon went through the roof. And, by the way, haven't come down since.

Nevada keeps talking about burying the entire world's nuclear waste in
the Nevada test site where nothing lives and nobody goes, but California
NIMBYs don't want a nuke railroad running through their state.

-c
  #2  
Old April 10th 08, 09:48 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Ken S. Tucker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 442
Default How much longer?

On Apr 10, 1:42 pm, gatt wrote:
A bigger reason that new oil refineries aren't being built, as well as
nuclear waste facilities, is that no one wants one near his playground.
Everyone wants a new refinery in someone else's backyard.


Yep. A case in point was San Jose when the new Cisco plant went in.
Sure it caused brownouts, but when it came time for a new power plant,
the Cisco people in city planning argued that a power plant in their
backyard would ruin the view for the workers at the factory.

As a result of that and the Enron shenanigans, electricity rates in
Oregon went through the roof. And, by the way, haven't come down since.

Nevada keeps talking about burying the entire world's nuclear waste in
the Nevada test site where nothing lives and nobody goes, but California
NIMBYs don't want a nuke railroad running through their state.
-c


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
Has them arabs worried.
Ken
  #3  
Old April 10th 08, 09:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,969
Default How much longer?

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
:

On Apr 10, 1:42 pm, gatt wrote:
A bigger reason that new oil refineries aren't being built, as well
as nuclear waste facilities, is that no one wants one near his
playground. Everyone wants a new refinery in someone else's
backyard.


Yep. A case in point was San Jose when the new Cisco plant went in.
Sure it caused brownouts, but when it came time for a new power
plant, the Cisco people in city planning argued that a power plant in
their backyard would ruin the view for the workers at the factory.

As a result of that and the Enron shenanigans, electricity rates in
Oregon went through the roof. And, by the way, haven't come down
since.

Nevada keeps talking about burying the entire world's nuclear waste
in the Nevada test site where nothing lives and nobody goes, but
California NIMBYs don't want a nuke railroad running through their
state. -c


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
Has them arabs worried.
Ken


Good grief.

Bertie
  #4  
Old April 11th 08, 02:07 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Dan Luke[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 713
Default How much longer?

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:48:24 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
Has them arabs worried.



Haw-haw!

Idiot.
  #5  
Old April 11th 08, 06:50 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Ken S. Tucker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 442
Default How much longer?

On Apr 10, 6:07 pm, Dan Luke wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:48:24 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
Has them arabs worried.


Haw-haw!


Get a mirror and check out your anus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Composition
Dofus you think all that methane is from dinosaur
farts?
Earth's loaded with "fossil fuels", but you don't
need to know that, because you'd rather be a
sucker.
Ken
  #6  
Old April 11th 08, 12:52 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,969
Default How much longer?

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news:0228d370-e42f-4ee4-
:

On Apr 10, 6:07 pm, Dan Luke wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:48:24 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
Has them arabs worried.


Haw-haw!


Get a mirror and check out your anus.


I think you got the wrong group for that Kennie.


Bertie
  #7  
Old April 10th 08, 10:14 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Phil J
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 142
Default How much longer?

On Apr 10, 3:42*pm, gatt wrote:
A bigger reason that new oil refineries aren't being built, as well as
nuclear waste facilities, is that no one wants one near his playground.
Everyone wants a new refinery in someone else's backyard.


Yep. *A case in point was San Jose when the new Cisco plant went in.
Sure it caused brownouts, but when it came time for a new power plant,
the Cisco people in city planning argued that a power plant in their
backyard would ruin the view for the workers at the factory.

As a result of that and the Enron shenanigans, electricity rates in
Oregon went through the roof. *And, by the way, haven't come down since.

Nevada keeps talking about burying the entire world's nuclear waste in
the Nevada test site where nothing lives and nobody goes, but California
NIMBYs don't want a nuke railroad running through their state.


A majority of people in Nevada absolutely do not want the Yucca
Mountain site to become active. They feel that the rest of the
country is trying to cram this thing down their throats, and they
resent it.

Phil
  #8  
Old April 10th 08, 10:50 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
romeomike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default How much longer?

Phil J wrote:


A majority of people in Nevada absolutely do not want the Yucca
Mountain site to become active. They feel that the rest of the
country is trying to cram this thing down their throats, and they
resent it.

Phil


Absolutely correct, and Utah doesn't want that stuff going through its
state on the way to Nevada either. Save transportation costs and bury it
in Iowa.
  #9  
Old April 11th 08, 01:00 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Phil J
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 142
Default How much longer?

On Apr 10, 4:50*pm, romeomike wrote:
Phil J wrote:

A majority of people in Nevada absolutely do not want the Yucca
Mountain site to become active. *They feel that the rest of the
country is trying to cram this thing down their throats, and they
resent it.


Phil


Absolutely correct, and Utah doesn't want that stuff going through its
state on the way to Nevada either. Save transportation costs and bury it
in Iowa.


The Alexis Park Inn and Nuculer Waste Storage Suites. Kinda has a
ring to it!

Phil
  #10  
Old April 11th 08, 02:35 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
romeomike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default How much longer?

Phil J wrote:
On Apr 10, 4:50 pm, romeomike wrote:
Phil J wrote:

A majority of people in Nevada absolutely do not want the Yucca
Mountain site to become active. They feel that the rest of the
country is trying to cram this thing down their throats, and they
resent it.
Phil

Absolutely correct, and Utah doesn't want that stuff going through its
state on the way to Nevada either. Save transportation costs and bury it
in Iowa.


The Alexis Park Inn and Nuculer Waste Storage Suites. Kinda has a
ring to it!

Phil


Yeah, but they need a refinery first. but you know, ..."those who live
by the sword, die by the sword." But those evil environmentalists will
probably save him.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My 302 and PDA are no longer on speaking terms Dixie Sierra Soaring 4 September 10th 07 05:16 PM
Some IFR GPS's no longer useable kevmor Instrument Flight Rules 2 May 28th 07 02:27 AM
Jepp no longer in the GA business...? John Harper Instrument Flight Rules 30 June 17th 04 10:49 PM
Some airmen facing longer deployments Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 January 16th 04 08:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.