wrote:
....
as a matter of fact stranded costs were a big issue, and why
generation was sold off

And why were there stranded costs? Simply other idiots like you
standing in the way, most likely...

no matter what you claim selling nuke, espically new nuke, and the
transmission lines that go with it, is going to be a tough to
impossible sell.

No it isn't going to be a hard sell down the road -- C sequestration and
greenhouse gas concerns will make it the obvious alternative.

--

On Feb 29, 7:01�pm, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

as a matter of fact stranded costs were a big issue, and why
generation was sold off

And why were there stranded costs? �Simply other idiots like you
standing in the way, most likely...

no matter what you claim selling nuke, espically new nuke, and the
transmission lines that go with it, is going to be a tough to
impossible sell.

No it isn't going to be a hard sell down the road -- C sequestration and
greenhouse gas concerns will make it the obvious alternative.

--

stranded costs came from over building for steel and other industry
that just went out of business........

time will tell but people fight power transmission lines, now add a
nuke power plant, and watch the lawsuits fly

wrote:
....

stranded costs came from over building for steel and other industry
that just went out of business........

It could hardly have been called over-building since they were there at
the time. There's little if any generation capacity that has come
online in that area in well over 20 years that I'm aware of (although I
didn't do a check of the Directory of Power Producers, I can do so if
you'd like to disagree).

There is certainly no great excess of power in the northeast grid even
today. Which unit(s) are you deeming as stranded?

time will tell but people fight power transmission lines, now add a
nuke power plant, and watch the lawsuits fly

Well, they can either decide to have power or do without -- suits me
fine if they all want to go somewhere where it doesn't disturb the rest
of us and get it by magic from whatever means they can invent on their own.

--

In article , dpb wrote:

wrote:
...

stranded costs came from over building for steel and other industry
that just went out of business........

It could hardly have been called over-building since they were there at
the time. There's little if any generation capacity that has come
online in that area in well over 20 years that I'm aware of (although I
didn't do a check of the Directory of Power Producers, I can do so if
you'd like to disagree).

Kinda sorta. Nothing in the way of main plants. There, instead, have
been a number of smaller peaking plants because they are much easier to
get approved. That is causing problems because the main plant are
getting older and the peaking plants are not as efficient.

Jim Redelfs wrote in
:

In article , dpb wrote:

"haller" and "research" in the same sentence? There's an oxymoron
for ya!

yes,it's very clear he didn't bother to look up pebble-bed reactor
technology.


What's weird, though, is that, prior to this stupid thread, I always
thought his stuff was worth reading. I guess that, if you keep
scratching LONG enough...

some people can be very competent in one area,and completely wacked in
another.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

" wrote in news:15644c6a-72f9-419a-8330-
:

On Feb 29, 7:01�pm, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

as a matter of fact stranded costs were a big issue, and why
generation was sold off

And why were there stranded costs? �Simply other idiots like you
standing in the way, most likely...

no matter what you claim selling nuke, espically new nuke, and the
transmission lines that go with it, is going to be a tough to
impossible sell.

No it isn't going to be a hard sell down the road -- C sequestration and
greenhouse gas concerns will make it the obvious alternative.

--

stranded costs came from over building for steel and other industry
that just went out of business........

time will tell but people fight power transmission lines, now add a
nuke power plant, and watch the lawsuits fly

OTOH,many cities will welcome the good paying,high tech jobs,along with
clean safe reliable electric power.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , dpb wrote:

wrote:
...

stranded costs came from over building for steel and other industry
that just went out of business........
It could hardly have been called over-building since they were there at
the time. There's little if any generation capacity that has come
online in that area in well over 20 years that I'm aware of (although I
didn't do a check of the Directory of Power Producers, I can do so if
you'd like to disagree).

Kinda sorta. Nothing in the way of main plants. There, instead, have
been a number of smaller peaking plants because they are much easier to
get approved. That is causing problems because the main plant are
getting older and the peaking plants are not as efficient.

Precisely---rather than there being excess capacity, there's actually a
shortage and they're paying the cost for high natural gas prices for gas
turbines instead of having baseload generation to be amortized over a
larger base and having the ability to be sold off-grid when off-peak.

--

wrote:
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:54:55 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

i live within 50 miles of shippingport power station.
You probably enjoy reasonably-priced, if not CHEAP, electric power.

not true at all, pittsburgh had some of the highest electric rates in
the nation, untill a few years ago, duquesne light sold off power
generation, rates dropped, now they are headed up agan big
time.........

around here nuke didnt equal low cost.


Back when Nuke power was first developed, there wre lots of glowing (pun
intended) articles in every major publication touting it as being able to
produce electricity "too cheap to meter". That was the standard company line.

They've been lying about it's benefits ever since.

The only significant cost factor has been the extended
design/license/build time that raised capital costs owing to
obstructionist tactics.

The actual fuel/incremental generation costs are extremely competitive
w/ any other baseload generation other than hydro.

--

On Feb 29, 8:33�pm, dpb wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:54:55 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

i live within 50 miles of shippingport power station.
You probably enjoy reasonably-priced, if not CHEAP, electric power.

not true at all, pittsburgh had some of the highest electric rates in
the nation, untill a few years ago, duquesne light sold off power
generation, rates dropped, now they are headed up agan big
time.........

around here nuke didnt equal low cost.

Back when Nuke power was first developed, there wre lots of glowing (pun
intended) articles in every major publication touting it as being able to
produce electricity "too cheap to meter". That was the standard company line.

They've been lying about it's benefits ever since.

The only significant cost factor has been the extended
design/license/build time that raised capital costs owing to
obstructionist tactics.

The actual fuel/incremental generation costs are extremely competitive
w/ any other baseload generation other than hydro.

--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

years ago duquesne light went into a power plant building boom, power
alley it was called. then 3 mile island occured, a partially built
nuke plant was abandoned, industry tanked in western pa, partially
built coal fired plants were abandoned too.......

all this building but not completing power plants created stranded
costs that raised duquesne light rates, which discouraged new industry
from coming here.

bring on the nuke plants, despite the industry the taxpayers will lean
on their congressional and state reps.........

build the plants in china, they truly need more electric.

here coal is a near forever supply./ plus our economy is well on its
way to tank. we wouldnt need nor be able to afford a bunch of new nuke
plants no matter how safe they are..........

i truly believe our economy is going to get very bad before it
improves at all

In article , wrote:

Back when Nuke power was first developed, there wre lots of glowing (pun
intended) articles in every major publication touting it as being able to
produce electricity "too cheap to meter". That was the standard company line.

It's true. I remember.

They've been lying about it's benefits ever since.

Name ONE lie. One. I won't even ask for a reference.

The [too cheap to meter] claim was NOT a lie. It might have happened had it
not been for the concerted efforts of a single-minded, anti-nuke campaign.

BTW - did you know that after Chernoble there was a large, highly radioactive
"cloud" that passed over parts of the United States?

Yeah, and it passed over numerous, other land masses before it got here.
Look, Ma! No fallout!

Apparently our government was more than a little concerned about it.

I disagree. The [no nukes] crowd was typically hysterical while those with
information and a capability for reasoned, rational thought were mostly
unconcerned.

Not much they could do, though except pray that weather conditions
cooperated to keep it up and moving so that it
eventually went elsewhere to precipatate it's load.

Agreed. Those prayers paid off and the irradiated cloud caused no trouble -
anywhere.

The biggest disaster was The Soviet Union's INTENTIONAL withholding of
information for DAYS following the accident. Countless thousands of humans
received the equivalent of an extra day in the sun unnecessarily.

Everything in moderation. It works EVERY time it's tried.
--

JR

On Feb 29, 10:34�pm, Jim Redelfs
wrote:
In article , wrote:
Back when Nuke power was first developed, there wre lots of glowing (pun
intended) articles in every major publication touting it as being able to
produce electricity "too cheap to meter". That was the standard company line.

It's true. �I remember.

They've been lying about it's benefits ever since.

Name ONE lie. �One. �I won't even ask for a reference.

The [too cheap to meter] claim was NOT a lie. �It might have happened had it
not been for the concerted efforts of a single-minded, anti-nuke campaign.

BTW - did you know that after Chernoble there was a large, highly radioactive
"cloud" that passed over parts of the United States?

Yeah, and it passed over numerous, other land masses before it got here. �
Look, Ma! �No fallout!

Apparently our government was more than a little concerned about it.

I disagree. �The [no nukes] crowd was typically hysterical while those with
information and a capability for reasoned, rational thought were mostly
unconcerned.

Not much they could do, though except pray that weather conditions
cooperated to keep it up and moving so that it
eventually went elsewhere to precipatate it's load.

Agreed. �Those prayers paid off and the irradiated cloud caused no trouble -
anywhere.

The biggest disaster was The Soviet Union's INTENTIONAL withholding of
information for DAYS following the accident. �Countless thousands of humans
received the equivalent of an extra day in the sun unnecessarily.

Everything in moderation. �It works EVERY time it's tried.
--
� � � � � �
JR

well you can claim the radiation cloud caused no troubles but sadly
the hot material settled all over the world and is reportedly still
causing cancer today.

thus it wasnt a non event............

coal is plentiful, 100% american and well understood.

the nuke power industry is going to have a horrible time getting any
new plants licensed in our country..........

In article
,
" wrote:

years ago duquesne light went into a power plant building boom, power
alley it was called. then 3 mile island occured, a partially built
nuke plant was abandoned, industry tanked in western pa, partially
built coal fired plants were abandoned too.......

Why? Because of the hysterical rants of a comparative handful of loud people
with willing accomplices in the media.

all this building but not completing power plants created stranded
costs that raised duquesne light rates, which discouraged new industry
from coming here.

Whose fault was it that the building was abandoned? They are the ones to
blame for the subsequent malaise you describe.

bring on the nuke plants, despite the industry the taxpayers will lean
on their congressional and state reps.........

I hope so. We could sure use the added capacity.

build the plants in china, they truly need more electric.

They'll build them - without ANY concern for their people or their safety.

here coal is a near forever supply.

OK. Now you're talking sense. But the Manmade Global Warming Hoax Believers
are hell bent on suppressing THAT particular fuel, too. It's *ALL* bad. We
can't win.

plus our economy is well on its way to tank.

Aw, turn off the television and look around. This is a Presidential Election
year. There hasn't been one where the economy has been good in my lifetime.
It's not all that GOOD right now, but it's no where NEAR "tanking".

we wouldnt need nor be able to afford a bunch of new nuke
plants no matter how safe they are..........

Wouldn't need or WON'T need?

Regardless, if we don't fully NEED the capacity right NOW, we will soon
enough. Given the time it takes to get ANY generation facility on-line, NOW
is the time to start.

Afford? Heck, yes. We might just have to back-off to the next, lower tier on
our NetFlix subscription. One less latte at Starbucks. One less hotel room
through PriceLine and perhaps one less Disney vacation.

All one has to do is look at what's being advertised on major media. If
someone wants to have a recession, they can just count me out.

i truly believe our economy is going to get very bad before it
improves at all

Obviously, I hope (and believe) you are wrong. The economy may slow a bit
more before November, but not by much. We'll get [whomever] inaugurated in
January and be well on our way to the next, hopeless disaster. Carry on.
--

JR

" wrote in
:

On Feb 29, 8:33�pm, dpb wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:54:55 -0800 (PST), "
hall...@aol
.com
wrote:

i live within 50 miles of shippingport power station.
You probably enjoy reasonably-priced, if not CHEAP, electric
power.

not true at all, pittsburgh had some of the highest electric rates
in the nation, untill a few years ago, duquesne light sold off
power generation, rates dropped, now they are headed up agan big
time.........

around here nuke didnt equal low cost.

Back when Nuke power was first developed, there wre lots of glowing
(pun

intended) articles in every major publication touting it as being
able t
o
produce electricity "too cheap to meter". That was the standard
company
line.

They've been lying about it's benefits ever since.

The only significant cost factor has been the extended
design/license/build time that raised capital costs owing to
obstructionist tactics.

The actual fuel/incremental generation costs are extremely
competitive w/ any other baseload generation other than hydro.

--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

years ago duquesne light went into a power plant building boom, power
alley it was called. then 3 mile island occured, a partially built
nuke plant was abandoned, industry tanked in western pa, partially
built coal fired plants were abandoned too.......

all this building but not completing power plants created stranded
costs that raised duquesne light rates, which discouraged new industry
from coming here.

bring on the nuke plants, despite the industry the taxpayers will lean
on their congressional and state reps.........

build the plants in china, they truly need more electric.

here coal is a near forever supply./

far more people die mining coal than have from US nuclear power.
Then there's the emissions and pollution from coal burning.

plus our economy is well on its
way to tank. we wouldnt need nor be able to afford a bunch of new nuke
plants no matter how safe they are..........

have you researched pebble-bed reactors yet?

Face it,you really ignore how safe they actually are,and are just
unreasonably afraid.
You must live in fear of asteroid strikes,too.

i truly believe our economy is going to get very bad before it
improves at all


Shipping high paying jobs to Mexico by building nuke plants there certainly
isn't the answer.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Redelfs wrote in
:

In article
,
" wrote:

build the plants in china, they truly need more electric.

They'll build them - without ANY concern for their people or their
safety.

China has ordered a LOT of nuclear power plants recently.

here coal is a near forever supply.

OK. Now you're talking sense. But the Manmade Global Warming Hoax
Believers are hell bent on suppressing THAT particular fuel, too.

Not for that reason("global warming"),but for the deaths from mining
coal,and the pollution from burning it.(even using scrubbers)

It's *ALL* bad. We can't win.

I believe we would be better off using our coal in a coal-to-gasoline
conversion for autos,than burning it in electric generation.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

" wrote in
:




the nuke power industry is going to have a horrible time getting any
new plants licensed in our country..........



Actually,new licenses have already been granted for new nuke
construction,with more on the way.
The application process has been streamlined to speed up nuke construction.

I think you have an irrational fear of "radiation".


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article
,
Jim Redelfs wrote:

build the plants in china, they truly need more electric.

They'll build them - without ANY concern for their people or their safety.

Haven't been following this thread. But, lacking other amusement this
evening...

Then the American companies who want to promote nuclear should go to
China, build the plants, train the operators, and supervise forever.
Make them models of safety, which might begin to sway American public
opinion.

Otherwise, if the Chinese build them poorly and run them poorly, another
unfortunate incident will occur, and nuclear's bad image will simply be
reinforced.

Smitty Two wrote:
....

Then the American companies who want to promote nuclear should go to
China, build the plants, train the operators, and supervise forever.
Make them models of safety, which might begin to sway American public
opinion.
....

They're already there (and have been for quite a long time).

They won't be there forever, but they're basically building Circle_W
clones which are the same as we've been operating for something
approaching 200 reactor-years w/o any injuries to the public.

--

Jim Yanik wrote:
" wrote in
:



the nuke power industry is going to have a horrible time getting any
new plants licensed in our country..........



Actually,new licenses have already been granted for new nuke

There have to the best of my knowledge only been two applications
_filed_--certainly no construction licenses have yet been granted that
I'm aware of.

Since the applications were only filed in July and October of last year,
that would indeed be a sped-up process.

If you know something different, I'd surely like to know what.

--

HeyBub wrote:
The Streets wrote:

all public buildings nationwide should be required to have a minimal
back up power capability.

to run emergency lights, get elevators to ground level, and stuff
like that.

people stuck in elevators is really dumb in this day and age

Elevators in our condo were update last year with a feature that uses
gravity to automatically return them to the bottom floor if the power
fails. No emergency power required.

Yeah, but how fast does it go down?

Uh - how fast does it have to go down?

In article
,
" wrote:


coal is plentiful, 100% american and well understood.

And very dirty unless all sorts of things are added (to the cost).


the nuke power industry is going to have a horrible time getting any
new plants licensed in our country..........

Heck the environmentalists manage to delay the NG peaking plants, so
getting ANY new plants licensed in our country.

In article
,
Jim Redelfs wrote:



plus our economy is well on its way to tank.

Aw, turn off the television and look around. This is a Presidential Election
year. There hasn't been one where the economy has been good in my lifetime.
It's not all that GOOD right now, but it's no where NEAR "tanking".
Geez. That is why it is called a business CYCLE, for the love of
Pete.

In article
,
Smitty Two wrote:

Then the American companies who want to promote nuclear should go to
China, build the plants, train the operators, and supervise forever.
Make them models of safety, which might begin to sway American public
opinion.


Actually that has already been done in China... and France (and if
they can't screw it up, it can't be screwed up-grin), Japan, etc. Hasn't
had much impact yet since facts aren't in control of this debate.

Otherwise, if the Chinese build them poorly and run them poorly, another
unfortunate incident will occur, and nuclear's bad image will simply be
reinforced.
Nah. Absence of an accident isn't news.

On Mar 1, 7:34*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
coal is plentiful, 100% american and well understood.

* *And very dirty unless all sorts of things are added (to the cost).

the nuke power industry is going to have a horrible time getting any
new plants licensed in our country..........

* Heck the environmentalists manage to delay the NG peaking plants, so
getting ANY new plants licensed in our country.


Yep, the environmental extremists are like that kid Mikey from the
70's TV commercial. They don't like anything.

Speaking of natural gas, Exxon-Mobil has a proposal to build an
offshore liquefied natural gas terminal off the coast of central NJ,
where I live. It would be 21 miles offshore, invisible from land,
with an underwater pipeline bringing the gas in. The local newspaper
ran an editorial that was a classic. They bitched about how it
couldn't be allowed, because we can't allow the chance of spills
causing damage to our beaches. Say what? The morons who proclaim
to know what is best for us, don't even realize what LNG is. There
is zero chance of anything washing up, because if it did spill, it
would just instantly vaporize. They don't even understand the
difference between crude oil and LNG, probably because when I was
taking chemistry and physics classes, they were all smoking dope and
hugging trees.

So, instead of getting some jobs and increased availability of energy
here in NJ, just watch what happens. The loons will block it and
eventually it will wind up somewhere where folks have a bit more
sense, like Louisiana. Then, 5 years from now, when energy costs 25%
more because it has to then be shipped 1000 miles, the same morons
will be bitching about the evil energy companies.

BTW, these same loons at the newspaper have been running scare stories
and editorials just about non-stop trying to prevent re-licensing of
our local nuke.

And of course the final hypocrisy in all this is that the same
environmentalists that block everything, are also the ones telling us
how the very existence of mankind is at stake due to global warming.
Yet, they block not only nuclear, which emits close to zero green
house gases and is one huge thing we could be quickly using to reduce
dependence on fossil fuels, but also virtually everything else.

And of course the final hypocrisy in all this is that the same
environmentalists that block everything, are also the ones telling us
how the very existence of mankind is at stake due to global warming.
Yet, they block not only nuclear, which emits close to zero green
house gases and is one huge thing we could be quickly using to reduce
dependence on fossil fuels, but also virtually everything else.

well the final waste product of nuclear plants will kill you for
thousands of years....... or so yucca mountain is supposed to store
them for.

knowing people in nuclear power plant building, note i live in
pittsburgh no new plants have been licensed in the US although some
are coming close, then the public will express their opinion

the pebble idea sounds great, and i hope its safe.

but remember we were told the existing plants were perfectly safe, and
would produce power so cheap meters would be unnecessary. ultimately
neither were true, TMI came way too close to poisioning a populated
area.

bring on the nukes, watch the public howl, and build them in china. I
predict licenses wouldnt be approved here because public opinion will
demand no nukes

note the pro nuke poster ignored totally that the chernobyl radiation
cloud has no doubt caused cancer in people world wide.........

a sad inconvenient detail.

On Mar 1, 9:41*am, " wrote:
And of course the final hypocrisy in all this is that the same
environmentalists that block everything, are also the ones telling us
how the very existence of mankind is at stake due to global warming.
Yet, they block not only nuclear, which emits close to zero green
house gases and is one huge thing we could be quickly using to reduce
dependence on fossil fuels, but also virtually everything else.

well the final waste product of nuclear plants will kill you for
thousands of years....... or so yucca mountain is supposed to store
them for.


Typical. Let's assume for the moment that the environmental concerns
about global warming that could be right. That the warming of Earth
is being caused by greenhouse gases, that irreversible climate change
that could doom the planet could happen in the next 50-100 years.
This isn't something extremely far fetched, as most scientists,
experts and govt bodies around the world believe it is a very real
risk.

Nuclear power is an immediate answer that could be brought online
quickly and economically that has just about zero greenhouse
emissions. But you block that over the fear that nuclear waste
stored at Yucca might kill someone? Makes a lot of sense. BTW,
there is already enough nuclear waste material in temporary storage
all over the country. Not only from civilian nukes, but from weapons
programs dating back 60 years. All that has to be stored
somewhere. The risk from XX tons vs 2XX tons seems a trivial point
to even debate. But one thing is not debatable. And that is those
that have blocked a relatively safe secure storage at Yucca have left
this waste sitting all over the country.




knowing people in nuclear power plant building, note i live in
pittsburgh no new plants have been licensed in the US although some
are coming close, then the public will express their opinion

The public is expressing their opinion. It's just like yours, based
on fear, instead of rational facts. What I'd like to hear is exactly
what your riskless energy solution is. And it would be nice if it
also addressed some of your other populist worries. Like reducing
the trade deficit. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Not
spiraling up energy prices, etc. Nuclear is a positive contributor
to all that.


the pebble idea sounds great, and i hope its safe.

but remember we were told the existing plants were perfectly safe, and
would produce power so cheap meters would be unnecessary.

Hmm, who told you that? I never recall any such claim. The first
plants built in the 1960's were expensive even then. They may have
been touted as less expensive than oil, but no one ever said they
would be free.




ultimately
neither were true, TMI came way too close to poisioning a populated
area.

Two Boeing 767's not only came close, but actually destroyed the WTC
and killed 3000 people. Should we close the airports and stop
building them too? From everything I've read, all the containment
systems at TMI worked perfectly and demonstrated that even with a
serious occurrence, due to the many redundant safety features, no one
was exposed to anything unsafe.



bring on the nukes, watch the public howl, and build them in china. I
predict licenses wouldnt be approved here because public opinion will
demand no nukes

Unfortunately, you may be right. It's interesting you keep trying to
push off nukes to other countries. First Mexico, now China. As if
they are somehow insignificant, or backward countries dumb enough to
accept nuclear power. What do you say about France? Aren't they
environmentally and safety conscious? They get about 70% of their
electric power from nukes in France. Or Japan, which has 55 nukes
that provide 1/3 of their power? As I recall, Japan has more reason
than any other country to be concerned about the effects of nuclear
power. Yet, they have no problem with it.

wrote:
note the pro nuke poster ignored totally that the chernobyl radiation
cloud has no doubt caused cancer in people world wide.........

a sad inconvenient detail.

Possibly so, but not provable one way nor the other.

I'll simply note US NRC regulations and licensing policy stops at the US
border. Russia (and China coincidentally to the other sidethread) are
very authoritarian societies so that they could and did make policy and
design choices that would not be acceptable in the US.

--

On Mar 1, 10:10�am, wrote:
On Mar 1, 9:41�am, " wrote:

And of course the final hypocrisy in all this is that the same
environmentalists that block everything, are also the ones telling us
how the very existence of mankind is at stake due to global warming.
Yet, they block not only nuclear, which emits close to zero green
house gases and is one huge thing we could be quickly using to reduce
dependence on fossil fuels, but also virtually everything else.

well the final waste product of nuclear plants will kill you for
thousands of years....... or so yucca mountain is supposed to store
them for.

Typical. �Let's assume for the moment that the environmental concerns
about global warming that could be right. � That the warming of Earth
is being caused by greenhouse gases, that irreversible climate change
that could doom the planet could happen in the next 50-100 years.
This isn't something extremely far fetched, as most scientists,
experts and govt bodies around the world believe it is a very real
risk.

Nuclear power is an immediate answer that could be brought online
quickly and economically that has just about zero greenhouse
emissions. � But you block that over the fear that nuclear waste
stored at Yucca might kill someone? � Makes a lot of sense. �BTW,
there is already enough nuclear waste material in temporary storage
all over the country. � Not only from civilian nukes, but from weapons
programs dating back 60 years. � All that has to be stored
somewhere. � The risk from XX tons vs 2XX tons seems a trivial point
to even debate. � But one thing is not debatable. � And that is those
that have blocked a relatively safe secure storage at Yucca have left
this waste sitting all over the country.

knowing people in nuclear power plant building, note i live in
pittsburgh no new plants have been licensed in the US although some
are coming close, then the public will express their opinion

The public is expressing their opinion. � It's just like yours, based
on fear, instead of rational facts. � What I'd like to hear is exactly
what your riskless energy solution is. � And it would be nice if it
also addressed some of your other populist worries. � Like reducing
the trade deficit. � Reducing our dependence on foreign oil. � Not
spiraling up energy prices, etc. � Nuclear is a positive contributor
to all that.



the pebble idea sounds great, and i hope its safe.

but remember we were told the existing plants were perfectly safe, and
would produce power so cheap meters would be unnecessary.

Hmm, who told you that? � �I never recall any such claim. � The first
plants built in the 1960's were expensive even then. � They may have
been touted as less expensive than oil, but no one ever said they
would be free.

ultimately

neither were true, TMI came way too close to poisioning a populated
area.

Two Boeing 767's not only came close, but actually destroyed the WTC
and killed 3000 people. � Should we close the airports and stop
building them too? � From everything I've read, all the containment
systems at TMI worked perfectly and demonstrated that even with a
serious occurrence, due to the many redundant safety features, no one
was exposed to anything unsafe.



bring on the nukes, watch the public howl, and build them in china. I
predict licenses wouldnt be approved here because public opinion will
demand no nukes

Unfortunately, you may be right. � It's interesting you keep trying to
push off nukes to other countries. � First Mexico, now China. �As if
they are somehow insignificant, or backward countries dumb enough to
accept nuclear power. � � What do you say about France? �Aren't they
environmentally and safety conscious? � �They get about 70% of their
electric power from nukes in France. � Or Japan, which has 55 nukes
that provide 1/3 of their power? � �As I recall, Japan has more reason
than any other country to be concerned about the effects of nuclear
power. � Yet, they have no problem with it.

my point is have other countries find the glitches in the pebble
system. all new things have unforseen troubles
yes at the time the very first nuke plants were being built we were
told they were safe, triple redundant, and no electric meters would be
needed.

go search back old science magazines, and others posted it. its not
made up

and since you bring up aircraft, we both should know that contaiment
buildings werent designed for a hit by a fully fueled airliner, the
largest werent designed yet at the time the current reactors were
built.......

life is full of risks, everything is risk vs rewards.

now the risk of poisioning a large part of our country
permanetely..... essentially forever, while raising cancer risk nation
and likely world wide?

just what reward is worth that?

your interst is making money selling new plants which will increase
the stock and probably your retirement account.

congrats that reward doesnt help most here

From everything I've read, all the containment
systems at TMI worked perfectly and demonstrated that even with a
serious occurrence, due to the many redundant safety features, no one
was exposed to anything unsafe.

i assume you know the top bart of TMIs reactor melted down?

On Mar 1, 6:59*am, " wrote:
note the pro nuke poster ignored totally that the chernobyl radiation
cloud has no doubt caused cancer in people world wide.........

a sad inconvenient detail.

And what you refuse to recognize is that the design of that reactor
was pee poor and dangerous. Does not apply to the US plants.

Harry K

On Mar 1, 7:31Â*am, " wrote:
On Mar 1, 10:10�am, wrote:





On Mar 1, 9:41�am, " wrote:

And of course the final hypocrisy in all this is that the same
environmentalists that block everything, are also the ones telling us
how the very existence of mankind is at stake due to global warming.
Yet, they block not only nuclear, which emits close to zero green
house gases and is one huge thing we could be quickly using to reduce
dependence on fossil fuels, but also virtually everything else.

well the final waste product of nuclear plants will kill you for
thousands of years....... or so yucca mountain is supposed to store
them for.

Typical. �Let's assume for the moment that the environmental concerns
about global warming that could be right. � That the warming of Earth
is being caused by greenhouse gases, that irreversible climate change
that could doom the planet could happen in the next 50-100 years.
This isn't something extremely far fetched, as most scientists,
experts and govt bodies around the world believe it is a very real
risk.

Nuclear power is an immediate answer that could be brought online
quickly and economically that has just about zero greenhouse
emissions. � But you block that over the fear that nuclear waste
stored at Yucca might kill someone? � Makes a lot of sense. �BTW,
there is already enough nuclear waste material in temporary storage
all over the country. � Not only from civilian nukes, but from weapons
programs dating back 60 years. � All that has to be stored
somewhere. � The risk from XX tons vs 2XX tons seems a trivial point
to even debate. � But one thing is not debatable. � And that is those
that have blocked a relatively safe secure storage at Yucca have left
this waste sitting all over the country.

knowing people in nuclear power plant building, note i live in
pittsburgh no new plants have been licensed in the US although some
are coming close, then the public will express their opinion

The public is expressing their opinion. � It's just like yours, based
on fear, instead of rational facts. � What I'd like to hear is exactly
what your riskless energy solution is. � And it would be nice if it
also addressed some of your other populist worries. � Like reducing
the trade deficit. � Reducing our dependence on foreign oil. � Not
spiraling up energy prices, etc. � Nuclear is a positive contributor
to all that.

the pebble idea sounds great, and i hope its safe.

but remember we were told the existing plants were perfectly safe, and
would produce power so cheap meters would be unnecessary.

Hmm, who told you that? � �I never recall any such claim.. � The first
plants built in the 1960's were expensive even then. � They may have
been touted as less expensive than oil, but no one ever said they
would be free.

ultimately

neither were true, TMI came way too close to poisioning a populated
area.

Two Boeing 767's not only came close, but actually destroyed the WTC
and killed 3000 people. � Should we close the airports and stop
building them too? � From everything I've read, all the containment
systems at TMI worked perfectly and demonstrated that even with a
serious occurrence, due to the many redundant safety features, no one
was exposed to anything unsafe.

bring on the nukes, watch the public howl, and build them in china. I
predict licenses wouldnt be approved here because public opinion will
demand no nukes

Unfortunately, you may be right. � It's interesting you keep trying to
push off nukes to other countries. � First Mexico, now China. �As if
they are somehow insignificant, or backward countries dumb enough to
accept nuclear power. � � What do you say about France? �Aren't they
environmentally and safety conscious? � �They get about 70% of their
electric power from nukes in France. � Or Japan, which has 55 nukes
that provide 1/3 of their power? � �As I recall, Japan has more reason
than any other country to be concerned about the effects of nuclear
power. � Yet, they have no problem with it.

my point is have other countries find the glitches in the pebble
system. all new things have unforseen troubles
yes at the time the very first nuke plants were being built we were
told they were safe, triple redundant, and no electric meters would be
needed.

go search back old science magazines, and others posted it. its not
made up

and since you bring up aircraft, we both should know that contaiment
buildings werent designed for a hit by a fully fueled airliner, the
largest werent designed yet at the time the current reactors were
built.......

life is full of risks, everything is risk vs rewards.

now the risk of poisioning a large part of our country
permanetely..... essentially forever, while raising cancer risk nation
and likely world wide?

just what reward is worth that?

your interst is making money selling new plants which will increase
the stock and probably your retirement account.

congrats that reward doesnt help most here- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

meterless electricity: Yep, you are correct, it was published in
the popular science type mags of the time. Why would lyou have
believed such obvious 'pie in the sky' dreaming?

I suppose you also believe that the 'wonderful air car' that keeps
cropping up in the same type publications is also true and it will go
for miles and miles and miles on a charge of compressed air and that
it will be built all over the world. That claim is still surfacing
and it first appeared about 12 or more years ago. Thus far not one
consumer car has hit the street.

How about the 'we will be able to drop a pill in the gas tank' bit
that was also "predicted" at the same time?

Harry K

In article
,
" wrote:

but remember we were told the existing plants were perfectly safe, and
would produce power so cheap meters would be unnecessary. ultimately
neither were true, TMI came way too close to poisioning a populated
area.

NO, actually the system worked as it was supposed DESPITE the human
error. You can't ask for much better safety than a system that
compensates for the mistakes those dern humans make.

In article
,
" wrote:

note the pro nuke poster ignored totally that the chernobyl radiation
cloud has no doubt caused cancer in people world wide.........

a sad inconvenient detail.

No doubt.. but no evidence.

On Mar 1, 10:31Â*am, " wrote:
On Mar 1, 10:10�am, wrote:





On Mar 1, 9:41�am, " wrote:

And of course the final hypocrisy in all this is that the same
environmentalists that block everything, are also the ones telling us
how the very existence of mankind is at stake due to global warming.
Yet, they block not only nuclear, which emits close to zero green
house gases and is one huge thing we could be quickly using to reduce
dependence on fossil fuels, but also virtually everything else.

well the final waste product of nuclear plants will kill you for
thousands of years....... or so yucca mountain is supposed to store
them for.

Typical. �Let's assume for the moment that the environmental concerns
about global warming that could be right. � That the warming of Earth
is being caused by greenhouse gases, that irreversible climate change
that could doom the planet could happen in the next 50-100 years.
This isn't something extremely far fetched, as most scientists,
experts and govt bodies around the world believe it is a very real
risk.

Nuclear power is an immediate answer that could be brought online
quickly and economically that has just about zero greenhouse
emissions. � But you block that over the fear that nuclear waste
stored at Yucca might kill someone? � Makes a lot of sense. �BTW,
there is already enough nuclear waste material in temporary storage
all over the country. � Not only from civilian nukes, but from weapons
programs dating back 60 years. � All that has to be stored
somewhere. � The risk from XX tons vs 2XX tons seems a trivial point
to even debate. � But one thing is not debatable. � And that is those
that have blocked a relatively safe secure storage at Yucca have left
this waste sitting all over the country.

knowing people in nuclear power plant building, note i live in
pittsburgh no new plants have been licensed in the US although some
are coming close, then the public will express their opinion

The public is expressing their opinion. � It's just like yours, based
on fear, instead of rational facts. � What I'd like to hear is exactly
what your riskless energy solution is. � And it would be nice if it
also addressed some of your other populist worries. � Like reducing
the trade deficit. � Reducing our dependence on foreign oil. � Not
spiraling up energy prices, etc. � Nuclear is a positive contributor
to all that.

the pebble idea sounds great, and i hope its safe.

but remember we were told the existing plants were perfectly safe, and
would produce power so cheap meters would be unnecessary.

Hmm, who told you that? � �I never recall any such claim.. � The first
plants built in the 1960's were expensive even then. � They may have
been touted as less expensive than oil, but no one ever said they
would be free.

ultimately

neither were true, TMI came way too close to poisioning a populated
area.

Two Boeing 767's not only came close, but actually destroyed the WTC
and killed 3000 people. � Should we close the airports and stop
building them too? � From everything I've read, all the containment
systems at TMI worked perfectly and demonstrated that even with a
serious occurrence, due to the many redundant safety features, no one
was exposed to anything unsafe.

bring on the nukes, watch the public howl, and build them in china. I
predict licenses wouldnt be approved here because public opinion will
demand no nukes

Unfortunately, you may be right. � It's interesting you keep trying to
push off nukes to other countries. � First Mexico, now China. �As if
they are somehow insignificant, or backward countries dumb enough to
accept nuclear power. � � What do you say about France? �Aren't they
environmentally and safety conscious? � �They get about 70% of their
electric power from nukes in France. � Or Japan, which has 55 nukes
that provide 1/3 of their power? � �As I recall, Japan has more reason
than any other country to be concerned about the effects of nuclear
power. � Yet, they have no problem with it.

my point is have other countries find the glitches in the pebble
system. all new things have unforseen troubles

Why bother. Just admit it. NOTHING anyone could do with any nuclear
reactor would reduce the risk to zero or to any level that would
satisfy you. With any nuclear reactor, if you defeat every safety
device put into place, you can always create a scenario where
radiation escapes the plant. You'll always have to transport the
waste, which you've railed against. You'll always have to store
waste. So, why pretend that some other country is going to "find
glitches and make nukes acceptable to you?"


yes at the time the very first nuke plants were being built we were
told they were safe, triple redundant, and no electric meters would be
needed.

go search back old science magazines, and others posted it. its not
made up

BS. I live 25 miles from the first commercial nuke in the USA.
JCPL, mid 60's. No such foolish claims were ever made. And for
good reason. The plants were expensive to build. Who was gonna pay
for them? And even if the power itself was free, you still have a
huge distribution system to pay for. Ever think about who pays for
the transmission towers, sub stations, utility polls?

BTW, it's not up to me to do research to support your silly claims.
If it's true, you show us.




and since you bring up aircraft, we both should know that contaiment
buildings werent designed for a hit by a fully fueled airliner, the
largest werent designed yet at the time the current reactors were
built.......

life is full of risks, everything is risk vs rewards.

now the risk of poisioning a large part of our country
permanetely..... essentially forever, while raising cancer risk nation
and likely world wide?

just what reward is worth that?

You pretend to understand risk vs reward, but clearly you don't. In
many scenarios, I can take a miniscule risk, say with .0000001%
probability of occurence, and use it to block almost anything. I
gave you the example, which you failed to answer, of the risk from
airplanes. How many have crashed and killed 200-600 people? Two
actually killed 3000 on 9/11. Yet, we're not stopping more of them
from being built. Why? Because the risk/reward is worth it. Same
thing with nukes.

As for this nonsense about poisoning a large part of the country
forever, ever hear of Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Are they abandoned
cities, or thriving modern ones? How many nukes were set off above
ground in NV during the 40's and 50's, so close to Las Vegas that
people went out into the streets to see them? Is Nevada an abandoned
waste land?





your interst is making money selling new plants which will increase
the stock and probably your retirement account.

congrats that reward doesnt help most here- Hide quoted text -



And now it comes down to this silly accusation? Like I have some
vested interest in building nuclear power plants? Are you for
real? Like there aren't a million other investments out there? Ones
where you can just go ahead and actually build something? As opposed
to spend maybe $100mil and 5 years to TRY to get permission to build
it and then have it get turned down. Repeat that 10 times, then
MAYBE get to actually build one?

Sure, that's a business I like.

My real interest is in having energy to keep this country safe,
secure, and my house warm.

BTW, I note you totally ignored my question of what exactly is YOUR
proposed solution to our energy needs? Which one is greenhouse
friendly, low pollution, reduces the trade deficit and completely safe
and risk free? Or are you one of the nuts that thinks electric just
comes out of the wall and that Detroit has a carburetor that will get
100 miles to the gallon, but keeps it off the market?

And you ignored France, which gets 70% of their power from nukes.
And Japan, that gets 1/3 of theirs from 55 nukes. Please explain how
it is that Japan, a country with plenty of reason to fear nuclear
power, finds it safe and acceptable.

In article , dpb wrote:

wrote:
note the pro nuke poster ignored totally that the chernobyl radiation
cloud has no doubt caused cancer in people world wide.........

a sad inconvenient detail.

Possibly so, but not provable one way nor the other.
Don't know. We should have pretty good data on where the cloud went
with the winds and all. Also should be able to model dispersal. The
first is just meteorology 101, the second should be floating around from
the days of above-ground testing of the nuke weapons. After that it
would be simple epidemeology to match up the above with (or lack
thereof) clusters of nuclear fallout-related cancers.


I'll simply note US NRC regulations and licensing policy stops at the US
border. Russia (and China coincidentally to the other sidethread) are
very authoritarian societies so that they could and did make policy and
design choices that would not be acceptable in the US.

--

But if anything, the Japanese and French are even more anal
retentive about such things than even the US, yet they have long (and
safe) histories of nuclear energy.

Jim Yanik wrote:
" wrote:
one that makes permanetely uninhabitible a big chunk of our country,
and the possiblity of loss of life and sickness that would go with
such a accident?

pay everyone to move, for all lost property? expenses and health
troubles?

Have you researched "pebble bed reactors" yet?
They self-moderate,inherently safe.

As long as there's a steady supply of stupid people for reactor sites to hire,
there's no safety in nuclear power.

--
If they could invoke Dubya,
I can certainly call a jerk Hussein.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , dpb wrote:

wrote:
note the pro nuke poster ignored totally that the chernobyl radiation
cloud has no doubt caused cancer in people world wide.........

a sad inconvenient detail.
Possibly so, but not provable one way nor the other.
Don't know. We should have pretty good data on where the cloud went
with the winds and all. Also should be able to model dispersal. The
first is just meteorology 101, the second should be floating around from
the days of above-ground testing of the nuke weapons. After that it
would be simple epidemeology to match up the above with (or lack
thereof) clusters of nuclear fallout-related cancers.

Sure -- but that's not exactly what I said. Studies have been made
although I've not looked at what conclusions they may have drawn.

It is, however, a statistical correlation at best and my guess is that
except for the near downstream track it will be impossible to detect any
increase owing specifically to Chernobyl.

--

wrote:
From everything I've read, all the containment
systems at TMI worked perfectly and demonstrated that even with a
serious occurrence, due to the many redundant safety features, no one
was exposed to anything unsafe.

i assume you know the top bart of TMIs reactor melted down?

The _systems_ did work correctly as is demonstrated by having no offsite
or onsite consequences other than mechanical damage. That's what they
were designed to do and what they did.

As noted in another response in which I summarized the accident
scenario, the actual failure was in the intervention of the operators in
the automatic response of the system to the incident w/o which the whole
thing would have been over and the reactor online again within a month
or so at the outside.

So, again, your lack of knowledge of what actually happened and what it
really shows is apparent. If it didn't say so much about what is wrong
w/ our overall level of scientific and technical education in the
country it would almost be funny.

--

risk vs rewards

Either we burn coal with its downsides or move to nuclear.

you obviously being from the industry prefer nuclear. thats certinally
your right........

but lets consider risks for just a moment.......

lets imagine the unthinkable occurs and a nuclear plant actually melts
down the core and breaches the containment somehow.

now no doubt there will be a rushed evacuation, and hopefully katrina
lessons will be remembered. that is take pets, use busses and have a
plan in place in advance.

now we need a site, say 3 mile island. depending on prevailing winds
the area of contamination will be wide. sad all that dead zone, for
many generations. probably includes new york philadephia and most of
the coast to maine, heck canada might be effected too.

I bet the fiancial loss will be more than the profit on all the nuke
plants generated since the first went on line. including the profits
on building the plants.

the reward green energy or so you say.

the risk, in the event of a major malfunction probably the bankruputcy
of our country..........

Discuss this story Print This Post E-Mail This Article
Published on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
Why Must Nuke-Power Lemmings Again Flock to the Radioactive Sea?
by Harvey Wasserman
It's baaaaaack. The fifty-year multi-trillion dollar failure of atomic
energy has resumed its lemming-like march to madness.

Why?

Isn't the definition of insanity the belief that if you do the same
thing again and again you'll somehow get a different result?

The first commercial reactor opened in Shippingport, Pennsylvania in
1957. America was promised electricity "too cheap to meter."

That was a lie.

America was promised there'd soon be consensus on a safe way to
dispose of high-level radioactive waste.

That was a lie.

America was promised private insurance companies would soon indemnify
reactor owners--and the public--against the consequences of a
catastrophic meltdown.

That was a lie.

America was promised these reactors were "inherently safe."

Then America was told no fuel had melted at Three Mile Island.

Lie and lie.

Then they said nobody was killed at Three Mile Island

Another lie.

They said it took six years for acid to eat through to a fraction of
an inch of the steel protecting the Great Lakes from a Chernobyl at
Davis-Besse, Ohio. That's a lie too.

Now they say they say nukes are economically self-sustaining.

But de-regulation stuck the public with the capital costs, and hid the
true amortization for the long-term expenses of rad waste disposal,
plant decommissioning, on-going health impacts and likely melt-downs
by terror and error.

Now they say nukes can fight global warming. But they ignore huge
radon emissions from uranium mill tailings, huge CO2 emissions from
fuel enrichment, and huge direct heat that results from nuke fission
itself, not to mention the long-term energy costs of decommissioning
and waste handling.

All reactors are pre-deployed weapons of mass radioactive destruction
for any willing terrorist. Had the jets that hit the World Trade
Center on 9/11/2001 hit nukes instead, the death toll and the
(uninsured) economic losses would be beyond calculation.

It could be happening as you read this.

They say a new generation of nukes will be "inherently safe," which is
exactly what they said about the last one. Limited construction
experience with this "new generation" already shows massive cost
overruns. There is no reason to believe these will be any safer,
cheaper, cleaner or more reliable than the last sorry batch.

They say more reactors won't be a proliferation problem. But they want
war on Iran which wants the Peaceful Atom to give it nuke weapons like
those in India and Pakistan.

They say the green alternatives won't work, but wind power is the
cheapest form of new generation now being built. The Solartopian array
of wind, solar, bio-fuels, geothermal, ocean thermal and increased
conservation and efficiency are attracting billions in investments all
over the world. The immensely profitable green energy industry is
growing at rates of 25-35%.

Meanwhile, "there isn't enough money in the federal till to change
Wall Street's calculation of the financial risks" for new nukes, says
Philip Clapp of the National Environmental Trust.

It is impossible to embrace both nuclear power and a free market
economy.

Nuke power cannot exist without massive government subsidies,
government insurance, government promises to deal with radioactive
waste, government security, government blind eyes to basic safety and
environmental standards.

A terrorist reactor attack would mean the end of our political rights
and the beginning of martial law, killing all the basic freedoms which
have defined the best of this country.

America is again being told this can't happen here. It is another lie.

Yet Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, McCain, Lieberman and other mainstreamers
flock to the nuke madhouse. Al Gore says new nukes must prove
themselves economically (they can't) but that there'll be a "small
part" for reactors in the future, and that the waste problem will be
solved.

There's a move to reverse California's ban on nuke construction
pending a solution to the waste problem. (California has four active
reactors near major earthquake faults).

Environmental Defense doesn't think "any options should be taken off
the table."

But in 1952 a Blue Ribbon Commission told Harry Truman the future of
America was with solar power.

Then Dwight Eisenhower embraced the "Peaceful Atom", sinking America
in the most expensive technological failure in human history.

In 1974 Richard Nixon responded to the Arab Oil Embargo by promising a
thousand US reactors by the year 2000. The No Nukes movement and
soaring oil prices kicked in, and the industry tanked.

So Jimmy Carter started us up the road to Solartopia ... until Ronald
Reagan ripped the solar panels off the White House roof and forced us
into Death Valley.

Now Gore has sold the world on the dangers of global warming. But will
it just be another excuse to throw more good money at more bad
reactors?

Clearly, there will be no easy end to this madness. But atomic
energy's bio-economic clock has clearly run out.

Basic sanity, ecological truth and the smart green money are all on
our side.

Our challenge is to put them in charge before more Three Mile Islands
or Chernobyls--or a nuclear 9/11--irradiate the asylum.