> Rich Grise wrote: >> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:34:14 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>> But I am all for nuke power, always was, more people die in coal mining >>> each year then have ever been killed by nuke accidents.
>> More people have been killed in TEDDY KENNEDY'S CAR than have been killed >> by nuclear power accidents in the US.
>> Cheers! >> Rich
> Except that the nuclear accident in Russia contaminated the whole world...
> I'd be more comfortable with civilian nukes - if the Navy were controlling > them...
The Chernobyl reactor was of a radically different design than those built for civillian power production elsewhere. The only comparable site in the US was the Hanford site that -- like Chernobyl -- was first and foremost a "breeder" to produce weapons-grade Plutonium with electricity as an incidental byproduct.
The bulk of the costs incurred in the construction of a basic Westinghouse power plant are Legal Fees (fighting off EcoFreak and other frivolous lawsuits) and interest fees on construction loans due to the massive delays (caused by the EcoFreak and other frivolous lawsuits).
The EcoFreaks (having no leg to stand on) try to kill off any nuclear project by using frivolous lawsuits to delay construction long enough that the budgeted money is either no longer available or is no longer sufficient to complete the project.
If you want inexpensive nuclear power then the first step is give Judges the ability to asses multi-year/century penalties upon any Lawyer who files a frivolous lawsuit. If nothing else, this will provide the benefit of unclogging Court Dockets. <grin>
> Bush had a vested interest in oil prices being as high as > possible. Obama does not have such an interest.
> I am hoping that the United States can come up with a sane nuclear > energy policy that would allow using nuclear power in a cost effective > and rational manner.
> The other advanced nuclear power countries recycle their nuclear fuel, > getting many times more output and many times less waste. I am sure > that the US can do that easily as well, if we get our political act > together.
> i
A large portion of the left is anti-nuclear for various reasons, none of which are not agenda driven.
>>>> But I am all for nuke power, always was, more people die in coal mining >>>> each year then have ever been killed by nuke accidents.
>>> More people have been killed in TEDDY KENNEDY'S CAR than have been killed >>> by nuclear power accidents in the US.
>>> Cheers! >>> Rich
>> Except that the nuclear accident in Russia contaminated the whole world...
>> I'd be more comfortable with civilian nukes - if the Navy were controlling >> them...
>The Chernobyl reactor was of a radically different design than those built >for civillian power production elsewhere. The only comparable site in the >US was the Hanford site that -- like Chernobyl -- was first and foremost a >"breeder" to produce weapons-grade Plutonium with electricity as an >incidental byproduct.
>The bulk of the costs incurred in the construction of a basic Westinghouse >power plant are Legal Fees (fighting off EcoFreak and other frivolous >lawsuits) and interest fees on construction loans due to the massive delays >(caused by the EcoFreak and other frivolous lawsuits).
>The EcoFreaks (having no leg to stand on) try to kill off any nuclear >project by using frivolous lawsuits to delay construction long enough that >the budgeted money is either no longer available or is no longer sufficient >to complete the project.
They're who killed logging in the PNW, too. EcoFreaks should be hunted, along with all the other -terrorists- in the world.
>If you want inexpensive nuclear power then the first step is give Judges the >ability to asses multi-year/century penalties upon any Lawyer who files a >frivolous lawsuit. If nothing else, this will provide the benefit of >unclogging Court Dockets. <grin>
A Freakin' MEN!
-- "To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson
Reprocess the waste. That'll reduce its volume dramatically. Glasiffy and store what remains.
-- Paul Hovnanian mailto:P...@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ "A doctor can bury his mistakes but an architect can only advise his client to plant vines." -- Frank Lloyd Wright
Ignoramus23290 wrote: > Bush had a vested interest in oil prices being as high as > possible. Obama does not have such an interest.
> I am hoping that the United States can come up with a sane nuclear > energy policy that would allow using nuclear power in a cost effective > and rational manner.
> The other advanced nuclear power countries recycle their nuclear fuel, > getting many times more output and many times less waste. I am sure > that the US can do that easily as well, if we get our political act > together.
> i
Here's the thing. The U.S. has never had an energy policy before. When Bush/Cheney were running the country the energy policy was "let the fossil fuel energy companies do whatever they want". In other words, the policy was one of letting private companies provide energy any way they wanted and at any price they wanted.
Obama wants to put in place a real policy regarding energy that is planned to provide clean energy for the long term at low cost and that reduces the use of fossil fuels. Is nuclear energy the way to go for the long term future? Probably not. One hour of the sun's energy is sufficient to power everything on earth for a year. Obviously, if that energy could be harnessed that would be the best. Ultimately, it's a question of what will work for the coming generations and as of now what looks best is solar, wind, geothermal. Maybe we will come up with fusion reactors or something not even dreamed of now. For now Obama is trying to come up with something that works. It'll likely be a combination of many things. But we can't continue putting 90 million tons of pollutants in the air every day like we do now. I'm just glad we have people in office who are at least trying to do something positive instead of just letting oil and coal companies do as they please. That policy has failed us just like all the other republican "ideas" have.
> If that nuclear industry would be able to deliver :-)
> The Areva/Siemens 1600 MW power plant OL3 over here was supposed to be > connected to the net this year, but now it appears likely that the > connection will occur in 2012.
> Paul
Bad timing. That's when the world is supposed to end.
>> If that nuclear industry would be able to deliver :-)
>> The Areva/Siemens 1600 MW power plant OL3 over here was supposed to be >> connected to the net this year, but now it appears likely that the >> connection will occur in 2012.
>> Paul
> Bad timing. That's when the world is supposed to end.
> Hawke
That's when CERN will finally be running at full power.
> >> If that nuclear industry would be able to deliver :-)
> >> The Areva/Siemens 1600 MW power plant OL3 over here was supposed to be > >> connected to the net this year, but now it appears likely that the > >> connection will occur in 2012.
> >> Paul
> > Bad timing. That's when the world is supposed to end.
> > Hawke
> That's when CERN will finally be running at full power.
And makes little black holes all over the place
What if the calendar ends at 2012 just because that's where the mathematicians decided they'd calculated it far enough and went out for a beer or a good ball game?
>>>> If that nuclear industry would be able to deliver :-)
>>>> The Areva/Siemens 1600 MW power plant OL3 over here was supposed to be >>>> connected to the net this year, but now it appears likely that the >>>> connection will occur in 2012.
>>>> Paul
>>> Bad timing. That's when the world is supposed to end.
>>> Hawke >> That's when CERN will finally be running at full power.
> And makes little black holes all over the place
> What if the calendar ends at 2012 just because that's where the > mathematicians decided they'd calculated it far enough and went out for > a beer or a good ball game?
Well, do you put your faith in the musings of a people aptly portrayed in Mel Gibson's movie?
> Ignoramus23290 wrote: >> Bush had a vested interest in oil prices being as high as >> possible. Obama does not have such an interest. I am hoping that the >> United States can come up with a sane nuclear >> energy policy that would allow using nuclear power in a cost effective >> and rational manner.
>> The other advanced nuclear power countries recycle their nuclear fuel, >> getting many times more output and many times less waste. I am sure >> that the US can do that easily as well, if we get our political act >> together. i
> Here's the thing. The U.S. has never had an energy policy before. When > Bush/Cheney were running the country the energy policy was "let the fossil > fuel energy companies do whatever they want". In other words, the policy > was one of letting private companies provide energy any way they wanted > and at any price they wanted.
> Obama wants to put in place a real policy regarding energy that is planned > to provide clean energy for the long term at low cost and that reduces the > use of fossil fuels. Is nuclear energy the way to go for the long term > future? Probably not. One hour of the sun's energy is sufficient to power > everything on earth for a year. Obviously, if that energy could be > harnessed that would be the best. Ultimately, it's a question of what will > work for the coming generations and as of now what looks best is solar, > wind, geothermal. Maybe we will come up with fusion reactors or something > not even dreamed of now. For now Obama is trying to come up with something > that works. It'll likely be a combination of many things. But we can't > continue putting 90 million tons of pollutants in the air every day like > we do now. I'm just glad we have people in office who are at least trying > to do something positive instead of just letting oil and coal companies do > as they please. That policy has failed us just like all the other > republican "ideas" have.
> Hawke
Why don't we have an energy policy? President Carter formed the Energy Dept in 1977 to get us energy independence if a few years. Hell the budget for this year is north of $26 Billion. Bush's fault we do not have a policy? Or what the hell has the DOE done with all the (wasted?) bucks?
>>> If that nuclear industry would be able to deliver :-)
>>> The Areva/Siemens 1600 MW power plant OL3 over here was supposed to be >>> connected to the net this year, but now it appears likely that the >>> connection will occur in 2012.
>>> Paul
>> Bad timing. That's when the world is supposed to end.
>> Hawke
>That's when CERN will finally be running at full power.
Aha! Now we know what causes the tipping to critical mass here. Areva lights up, then CERN turns on, the liberals go crazy about it, and they're each put down with a round or two, saving the world.
I love it when a plan comes together! ;)
-- "To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:44:32 -0600, Ignoramus23290
<ignoramus23...@NOSPAM.23290.invalid> wrote: >Bush had a vested interest in oil prices being as high as >possible. Obama does not have such an interest.
What Interest was Bush's alleged to be?
>I am hoping that the United States can come up with a sane nuclear >energy policy that would allow using nuclear power in a cost effective >and rational manner.
>The other advanced nuclear power countries recycle their nuclear fuel, >getting many times more output and many times less waste. I am sure >that the US can do that easily as well, if we get our political act >together.
>i
"IMHO, some people here give Jeff far more attention than he deserves, but obviously craves. The most appropriate response, and perhaps the cruelest, IMO, is to simply killfile and ignore him. An alternative, if you must, would be to post the same standard reply to his every post, listing the manifold reasons why he ought to be ignored. Just my $0.02 worth."
-- Paul Hovnanian mailto:P...@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ban the bomb. Save the world for conventional warfare.
On Nov 3, 12:14 pm, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net> wrote: > On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:34:14 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote: > > But I am all for nuke power, always was, more people die in coal mining > > each year then have ever been killed by nuke accidents. > > More people have been killed in TEDDY KENNEDY'S CAR than have been killed > by nuclear power accidents in the US. > > Cheers! > Rich
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST), the infamous Glenn Gundlach <stratu...@yahoo.com> scrawled the following:
> On Nov 3, 12:14 pm, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net> wrote: > > On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:34:14 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote: > > > But I am all for nuke power, always was, more people die in coal >mining > > > each year then have ever been killed by nuke accidents.
> > More people have been killed in TEDDY KENNEDY'S CAR than have been >killed > > by nuclear power accidents in the US.
> > Cheers! > > Rich
>Thanks Rich !!! I needed a good laugh.
Go ahead and laugh, Glenn, but both statements are absolutely true.
---------------------------------------------------- Thesaurus: Ancient reptile with excellent vocabulary ====================================================
|
