On Jun 3, 4:48*pm, dpb wrote:
On 6/3/2011 3:29 PM, Robatoy wrote:
...

stop this bull**** train and look at what makes sense?

...

Not sure what they're doing up north, Robatoy; what they're doing down
here is making more bs rules and adding costs thereby.

My task (and I've chosen to accept it) is to try to throw fact in front
of the train and make as much effort as possible to keep power
affordable for our members.

I don't know of any way other than to try to counteract the agenda of
the others than by refuting them, do you?

(Or, maybe I'm totally misreading...I will kill this thread in my reader
so I'm no longer tempted, though, at least until Lew goes off again... )


If your task is keeping costs down on distribution, then it doesn't
matter where the MWs come from.
If the decision to drain a lake through a turbine is 20 free MW's for
a year and then the damn thing goes dry, the lake that is, then cooler
heads must prevail. In that hypothetical scenario, you can't run lines
to a community with a guarantee to supply them.
So the supply has to have some robustness to it. Not only are we
talking about base-load, we are also looking at sustainability. The
steadiest, reliable base-load we have, here and below the border, is
nuclear. Fact.
So if we are going to blow a bezillion dollars on R&D, let it be to
perfect that source we have become to trust.
Nuclear is pretty darn green if managed and put in places where the
risk factors are extremely low.
Coal mines collapse, water runs out and artificial lakes causes all
kinds of eco-problems.

We have spent a gazillion dollars working on all facets of nuclear
power. THAT is money already invested. We have learned so much over
the last 80 years. Let us put that to good use and be more careful.

We can't afford NOT to go nuclear.