HP Recycled Over 10 Million Toner Cartridges in 02

Comments on “HP Recycled Over 10 Million Toner Cartridges in 02”

1. Tim S. January 8, 2009 at 12:00 am

   Here’s an interesting artcile regarding nuclear power:

   http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/05/the-nuclear-option.html

   We’re moving away from an oil-based economy. Already car manufacturers are looking into “plug-in” hybrids. Can we imagine what the demand will be like for electricity if we begin the process of replacing gas-burning vehicles with electric plug-ins? How will this new demand be sourced? Coal-powered electric plants, gas-powered, wind, solar, nuclear?

   The smart money will predict that nuclear won’t get the big push it would need from a Democratically controlled congress. Probably a few small bones will be tossed to the coal-producing states. Even natural gas-powered plants would put a tremendous cost pressure on the price of natural gas – which we also use to heat our homes!

   So that only leaves wind and solar. My guess is that within the next 20-50 years we’ll have largely replaced most power generation with wind and solar.

   Reply ↓
2. jhv January 8, 2009 at 12:00 am

   It surprises me! With regards to your understanding of todays need for energy you would put all your eggs in one basket with renewables. Face it, as well as others should, unless you want to be living in 3rd world country, we need a wide range of energy needs such as Yes, Nuclear, Fossil and Renewables in our portfolio to be really honest to people instead of touting the likelihood of lies to people who read your article. Renewables, as most who have studied up on energy and can actually tell the public the truth, are not efficient, nor are they as wonderful as you might think. Renewables to be the only source of energy would require the following, miles and miles of land for mirrors, windmills, transmission lines and access roads. Also, associated is a cost of maintenance, and in a mere few years, replacement. If you think nuclear is expensive, factor in the replacement and up keep and cost associated with renewables, over an extended length of time and at about a 30% efficiency rating. This would bring the cost of nuclear in a much more favorable remedy to this countries needs. Remember, this is not about your personal belief, this is what is good for the country and our future generation. I would rather hand over to my kids the answer for 60 years instead of billions and billions of dollars to be spent to maintain what we might have now. I think we need approx. 60% of needs from nuclear, 30% from fossil and 10% from renewables, although that 10% from renewables would have to be banked upon 40% due to inefficiency levels.

   Reply ↓
3. Tim S. January 10, 2009 at 12:00 am

   JHV,
   There are currently approx. 104 nuclear reactors in the United States producing approximately 20 percent of the country’s supply of electricity. To get to your proposed 60 percent level, we’d have to build another 200 or more nuclear reactors. With a typical cost of 3-4 billion per reactor these days (not including the cost of interest to borrow to build these reactors), we’d be looking at a cost of $800 billion to build those reactors. Including the cost of interest, you’d be looking at close to 2 trillion dollars. So nuclear has very high up front costs. I think it would be virtually impossible to get 200 nuclear plants approved for construction, not with the NIMBY (not in my back yard) mentality in this country. Nobody’s putting any eggs in any basket at the moment. Most of the nuclear plants will be around for a long time. Inevitably there will be more natural gas and even possibly coal powered plants. It’s a long term hope that renewables will evenutually lead the way. Denmark, for instance, currently sources 20 percent of it’s electricity from renewable sources. Let’s hope our children are not all forced to live within close proximity of of a nuclear plant (I live within 5 miles of one!) or have to deal with nuclear waste that we don’t have really good plan for the next 30,000 years. As for fossil fuels, we’d probably have to take over a middle eastern or south american country *defacto* to keep those supplies guaranteed over the next 30 years. So let’s be realistic where we really see energy coming from over the next 50 years – do you agree?

   Reply ↓