|
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
Since this is a perennial favorite topic here--"Where we gonna git our
energy from?"--I thought it apropos to post this news flash: http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...d=ajl3fRv9AdDI The lede: The U.S. may never need to build new nuclear or coal-fired power plants because renewable energy and improved efficiency can meet future power demand, the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said. To all those red-meat, gotta-build-more-nukes-and-greenhouse-gas-spewing-coal-plants types here (we know who you are), keep in mind: this isn't some granola-eating, tree-hugging enviro-meddler[1] talking, but the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Talk amongst yourselves. [1] That phrase courtesy of the big enviro-meddler (and monkey-wrencher) hisself, Ed Abbey. -- Save the Planet Kill Yourself - motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/) |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote: Since this is a perennial favorite topic here--"Where we gonna git our energy from?"--I thought it apropos to post this news flash: http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...d=ajl3fRv9AdDI The lede: The U.S. may never need to build new nuclear or coal-fired power plants because renewable energy and improved efficiency can meet future power demand, the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said. To all those red-meat, gotta-build-more-nukes-and-greenhouse-gas-spewing-coal-plants types here (we know who you are), keep in mind: this isn't some granola-eating, tree-hugging enviro-meddler[1] talking, but the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Talk amongst yourselves. Much worse than that. Wellinghoff, a Democrat, was appointed chairman by President Barack Obama last month. He has served on the commission since 2006. -- "Distracting a politician from governing is like distracting a bear from eating your baby." --PJ O'Rourke |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
On 4/22/2009 1:49 PM Kurt Ullman spake thus:
In article , David Nebenzahl wrote: To all those red-meat, gotta-build-more-nukes-and-greenhouse-gas-spewing-coal-plants types here (we know who you are), keep in mind: this isn't some granola-eating, tree-hugging enviro-meddler[1] talking, but the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Much worse than that. Wellinghoff, a Democrat, was appointed chairman by President Barack Obama last month. He has served on the commission since 2006. I was going to mention that, to kind of quarantine that particular objection. OK, so he's been on the commission since 2006, meaning he was appointed by ... um, George W. Bush, right? -- Save the Planet Kill Yourself - motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/) |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
In article , David Nebenzahl wrote:
Since this is a perennial favorite topic here--"Where we gonna git our energy from?"--I thought it apropos to post this news flash: http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...d=ajl3fRv9AdDI The lede: The U.S. may never need to build new nuclear or coal-fired power plants because renewable energy and improved efficiency can meet future power demand, the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said. I think he's right. But, instead of saying "improved efficency" he should have said (really meant?) reduced demand. The economy is tanking -- that will reduce demand substantially. Cap and trade could double prices and that will reduce demand still further -- many of us simply won't be able to afford it. Slowing down the economy and jacking up prices will certainly reduce the need for more generating capacity. This may be a good thing, or not, depending on your point of view. -- |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| | Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". | | Gary Player. | | http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote: On 4/22/2009 1:49 PM Kurt Ullman spake thus: In article , David Nebenzahl wrote: To all those red-meat, gotta-build-more-nukes-and-greenhouse-gas-spewing-coal-plants types here (we know who you are), keep in mind: this isn't some granola-eating, tree-hugging enviro-meddler[1] talking, but the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Much worse than that. Wellinghoff, a Democrat, was appointed chairman by President Barack Obama last month. He has served on the commission since 2006. I was going to mention that, to kind of quarantine that particular objection. OK, so he's been on the commission since 2006, meaning he was appointed by ... um, George W. Bush, right? That particular commission no more than three may belong to the same party. He was appointed by GWB but since the Senate has to confirm, the Dem members of the Senate are usually given wide latitude to "suggest" commissioners. This is not a "pure" appointment. -- "Distracting a politician from governing is like distracting a bear from eating your baby." --PJ O'Rourke |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
Kurt Ullman wrote:
OK, so he's been on the commission since 2006, meaning he was appointed by ... um, George W. Bush, right? That particular commission no more than three may belong to the same party. He was appointed by GWB but since the Senate has to confirm, the Dem members of the Senate are usually given wide latitude to "suggest" commissioners. This is not a "pure" appointment. It's worse. Wellinghoff is a tree-hugger from the time before trees. His bio says he's been involved in consumer and conservation law for more than 30 years. "Chairman Wellinghoff's priorities at FERC include opening wholesale electric markets to renewable resources, providing a platform for participation of demand response and other distributed resources in wholesale electric markets including energy efficiency and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), and promoting greater efficiency in our nation's energy infrastructure..." No priority for hardening the grid. No priority for meeting energy demand. Oh well... |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
Kurt Ullman wrote in
: In article , David Nebenzahl wrote: Since this is a perennial favorite topic here--"Where we gonna git our energy from?"--I thought it apropos to post this news flash: http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...d=ajl3fRv9AdDI The lede: The U.S. may never need to build new nuclear or coal-fired power plants because renewable energy and improved efficiency can meet future power demand, the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said. To all those red-meat, gotta-build-more-nukes-and-greenhouse-gas-spewing-coal-plants types here (we know who you are), keep in mind: this isn't some granola-eating, tree-hugging enviro-meddler[1] talking, but the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Talk amongst yourselves. Much worse than that. Wellinghoff, a Democrat, was appointed chairman by President Barack Obama last month. He has served on the commission since 2006. the "improved efficiency" is everybody forced into public transportation,reducing their lifestyle,doing less. Electric cars require far more electric power than conservation will free up.(assuming you can afford to buy a new electric car...) IMO,we need more nuke plants,but don't need any more coal-fired plants. And we need domestic oil drilling,production and refining,to power all the current petro autos and trucks. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
IMO,we need more nuke plants,but don't need any more coal-fired plants.
We "need" both. A coal plant can be built in one or two years after approval. A nuke likely would take 7 to 10 years after initial approval. A nuke doesn't need to take 7-10 years, that's just how they do it. Each is a completely different design. A "one size fit all", mass produced nuke plant. As long as the earth under it doesn't have a fault, and cooling water is there. May need a few tweaks for this place or that. But to design each plant as unique will not help much. Remember, "too cheap to meter"? |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
"John Gilmer" wrote in message
... Electric cars require far more electric power than conservation will free up.(assuming you can afford to buy a new electric car...) Tee hee. Fortunately, electric cars don't make much sense even to the environmental wackos. There are a lot of hybrids out there. It's only a matter of time before they start having "interesting" accidents in which it become patently obvious that larger battery packs present their own unique hazards. IMO,we need more nuke plants,but don't need any more coal-fired plants. We "need" both. A coal plant can be built in one or two years after approval. A nuke likely would take 7 to 10 years after initial approval. If nukes continue to be built the older (and dirtier) coal plants (especially those in "high rent" areas) will be shut down by their operators. This might cause some system stability problems (more large scale cascading blackouts) but ... And we need domestic oil drilling,production and refining,to power all the current petro autos and trucks. The free market is quite good at maintaining the flow of oil to where its needed. When oil went to $150 a year or so ago, the free market gave the producers a HARD slap. Now oil is trading around $50. If the government wants to drill for domestic then it can decide to sell its production below market prices. It's a dumb thing to do but that's the government for you. Fun idea, but "market price" includes too much speculative bull****. |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
"Rick Samuel" wrote in message ... IMO,we need more nuke plants,but don't need any more coal-fired plants. We "need" both. A coal plant can be built in one or two years after approval. A nuke likely would take 7 to 10 years after initial approval. A nuke doesn't need to take 7-10 years, that's just how they do it. Each is a completely different design. A "one size fit all", mass produced nuke plant. As long as the earth under it doesn't have a fault, and cooling water is there. May need a few tweaks for this place or that. But to design each plant as unique will not help much. Remember, "too cheap to meter"? Yes, I do remember "too cheap to meter." Unless a decision is taken to "package" nuke plants so that most of the components can be manufacturered off site, a "one size fits all" design just will not work. There are all kinds of secondary fears with a nuke plant. With a coal plant, if the operator pushes the RED button, there may be some damage but pulling the plug doesn't present much of a risk to public health. In a nuke plant, you can't just "pull the plug" because there is too much residual heat that has to be passed out into the environment. The regulators have to ask all kinds of "what if" questions. You have a cooling pond: "what if" the dam fails? If the potential operator can't give good answers to all the "what if" questions he can't proceed. In a coal plant, if something goes wrong, the plant might be off line for 6 months while you fix what you broke. In the case of a nuke, you permanently convert the plant from an asset to a liability and you have to make good the losses of those who were exposed to radiation. Maybe the nuke solution is to locate some VERY good sites for plants and concentrate the plants there. "What if" problems and solutions will extend to 2 or 3 plants. It make take 10 years for #1 but #2 might only take another 4 years. |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
"John Gilmer" wrote in message
net... "Rick Samuel" wrote in message ... IMO,we need more nuke plants,but don't need any more coal-fired plants. We "need" both. A coal plant can be built in one or two years after approval. A nuke likely would take 7 to 10 years after initial approval. A nuke doesn't need to take 7-10 years, that's just how they do it. Each is a completely different design. A "one size fit all", mass produced nuke plant. As long as the earth under it doesn't have a fault, and cooling water is there. May need a few tweaks for this place or that. But to design each plant as unique will not help much. Remember, "too cheap to meter"? Yes, I do remember "too cheap to meter." Unless a decision is taken to "package" nuke plants so that most of the components can be manufacturered off site, a "one size fits all" design just will not work. There are all kinds of secondary fears with a nuke plant. With a coal plant, if the operator pushes the RED button, there may be some damage but pulling the plug doesn't present much of a risk to public health. In a nuke plant, you can't just "pull the plug" because there is too much residual heat that has to be passed out into the environment. The regulators have to ask all kinds of "what if" questions. You have a cooling pond: "what if" the dam fails? If the potential operator can't give good answers to all the "what if" questions he can't proceed. In a coal plant, if something goes wrong, the plant might be off line for 6 months while you fix what you broke. In the case of a nuke, you permanently convert the plant from an asset to a liability and you have to make good the losses of those who were exposed to radiation. Maybe the nuke solution is to locate some VERY good sites for plants and concentrate the plants there. "What if" problems and solutions will extend to 2 or 3 plants. It make take 10 years for #1 but #2 might only take another 4 years. And then there are the security issues involved with nuke plants, which some operators are only pretending to have dealt with. |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
John Gilmer wrote:
.... Unless a decision is taken to "package" nuke plants so that most of the components can be manufacturered off site, a "one size fits all" design just will not work. Major plant components have always been manufactured offsite -- it would be pretty difficult to conceive of building a pressure vessel or steam generator anywhere except in a facility equipped to do so. OTOH, it would be inconceivable to think you could build a containment building and somehow ship it to be erected on site. The historic time delays were _not_ owing to either construction nor design; there were virtually all caused by a combination of changing licensing requirements _during_ construction and/or obstructionist intervention raising every red herring known to man and inventing new ones when those failed. .... Maybe the nuke solution is to locate some VERY good sites for plants and concentrate the plants there. "What if" problems and solutions will extend to 2 or 3 plants. It make take 10 years for #1 but #2 might only take another 4 years. .... There are already standardized designs and license-issues reviewed on file w/ the NRC from the vendors (and have been for a number of years now). The current licensing process is _supposed_ to take 4-5 years max--whether that will be met is soon to be tested. There were last I checked 27 iirc new applications for operating licenses for new units filed w/ the NRC to be processed over the next 8-10 years. Almost all of these are for either additional units on sites with existing reactors or previously selected and approved sites where reactors were not built or completed in the previous anti-nuclear hysteria. Whether the C-sequestration people have any intent to actually accomplish something will be clearly demonstrated in their response to these as hearings proceed. If they are yet again lined up in opposition w/ the obvious others who will undoubtedly still be, they will show unequivocally they're only obstructionists at heart. The statement of the subject line is simply ludicrous but is simple to make if one is not actually in charge of _doing_ anything other than making paper and rules for others to try to live under. -- |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
"John Gilmer" wrote in
: JY wrote; And we need domestic oil drilling,production and refining,to power all the current petro autos and trucks. The free market is quite good at maintaining the flow of oil to where its needed. When oil went to $150 a year or so ago, the free market gave the producers a HARD slap. Now oil is trading around $50. If the government wants to drill for domestic then it can decide to sell its production below market prices. It's a dumb thing to do but that's the government for you. The gov't isn't the one doing the drilling,it's the one doing the BLOCKING.(Congress) Odd,because the gov't gets revenue from domestic oil production and refining. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
... "John Gilmer" wrote in : JY wrote; And we need domestic oil drilling,production and refining,to power all the current petro autos and trucks. The free market is quite good at maintaining the flow of oil to where its needed. When oil went to $150 a year or so ago, the free market gave the producers a HARD slap. Now oil is trading around $50. If the government wants to drill for domestic then it can decide to sell its production below market prices. It's a dumb thing to do but that's the government for you. The gov't isn't the one doing the drilling,it's the one doing the BLOCKING.(Congress) Odd,because the gov't gets revenue from domestic oil production and refining. -- Jim Yanik If you're referring to royalties from leased drilling areas, that's only theoretical so far, although the current admin is trying to fix that. |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
John Gilmer wrote:
.... The free market is quite good at maintaining the flow of oil to where its needed. When oil went to $150 a year or so ago, the free market gave the producers a HARD slap. Now oil is trading around $50. The oil market isn't totally free market since OPEC is an avowed open cartel. They don't have total control but certainly influence world supply (and hence price) significantly from what it would be if it weren't in existence as a coordinated force. Much, if not all, of the the drastic reduction in oil prices was owing to the overall economic downturn initiated by other economic factors far more than oil prices. There was a minor cut in US gasoline consumption at the peak before the debacle hit, but it was quite small (2% kind of numbers), hardly cause for complete runback. And, of course, the high price was driven in large part by speculation of continued economic growth and futures trading on that speculation rather than on actual production shortages. IOW, the bubble would have burst on its own anyway. If the government wants to drill for domestic then it can decide to sell its production below market prices. It's a dumb thing to do but that's the government for you. Which government of which do you speaketh? The US government has no production. Venezuela and Mexico, otoh, is all nationalized. -- |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
In article , dpb wrote:
John Gilmer wrote: ... The free market is quite good at maintaining the flow of oil to where its needed. When oil went to $150 a year or so ago, the free market gave the producers a HARD slap. Now oil is trading around $50. The oil market isn't totally free market since OPEC is an avowed open cartel. They don't have total control but certainly influence world supply (and hence price) significantly from what it would be if it weren't in existence as a coordinated force. Maybe at the margins. But this last up and downswing has shown that they don't have all that much impact in real life. You can't fight the laws of supply and demand. Especially when there are many outside the cartel and those inside of it aren't all the disciplined. Much, if not all, of the the drastic reduction in oil prices was owing to the overall economic downturn initiated by other economic factors far more than oil prices. There was a minor cut in US gasoline consumption at the peak before the debacle hit, but it was quite small (2% kind of numbers), hardly cause for complete runback. And, of course, the high price was driven in large part by speculation of continued economic growth and futures trading on that speculation rather than on actual production shortages. IOW, the bubble would have burst on its own anyway. Pretty much my point. (grin). -- "Distracting a politician from governing is like distracting a bear from eating your baby." --PJ O'Rourke |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
"Rick Samuel" wrote:
A nuke doesn't need to take 7-10 years, that's just how they do it. Each is a completely different design. A "one size fit all", mass produced nuke plant. It doesn't take 7-10 years to design and build a custom nuke plant. The majority of that time is spent on BS environmental impact studies and other legal roadblocks. You're right - a standardized reactor design and a single series of reviews could reduce that to a couple of years. |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
"Robert Neville" wrote in message
... "Rick Samuel" wrote: A nuke doesn't need to take 7-10 years, that's just how they do it. Each is a completely different design. A "one size fit all", mass produced nuke plant. It doesn't take 7-10 years to design and build a custom nuke plant. The majority of that time is spent on BS environmental impact studies and other legal roadblocks. You're right - a standardized reactor design and a single series of reviews could reduce that to a couple of years. Maybe. How can you standardize the review process for the sites themselves, unless the sites are all identical in every pertinent way? |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
On Apr 22, 3:42*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
Since this is a perennial favorite topic here--"Where we gonna git our energy from?"--I thought it apropos to post this news flash: http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...d=ajl3fRv9AdDI The lede: * *The U.S. may never need to build new nuclear or coal-fired power * *plants because renewable energy and improved efficiency can meet future * *power demand, the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said. To all those red-meat, gotta-build-more-nukes-and-greenhouse-gas-spewing-coal-plants types here (we know who you are), keep in mind: this isn't some granola-eating, tree-hugging enviro-meddler[1] talking, but the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Talk amongst yourselves. [1] That phrase courtesy of the big enviro-meddler (and monkey-wrencher) hisself, Ed Abbey. -- Save the Planet Kill Yourself - motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/) Manufacturing will flow to the countries that can produce the most and cheapest electricity, period. China is building a coal plant every few months (of course the world excludes them from Co2 rules because they are "poor"). We wont need a lot of power simply because we wont be making very many things is the admin's unsaid implication. A country cannot be a powerful manufacturer without making a lot of electricity. I guess electric (essentially coal/nuclear) powered cars are also out of the question. If every household had to re-charge a pair of Chevy Volt's for 8 hours every night it will make our seasonal AC usage look like a pittance. We will regret the day we said no to nuclear investments now, as that is the basis of all this electric car talk. If I were running GM and I heard this, I would stop further investment in the Chevy Volt today, until the admin assured me electricity will be both abundant and cheap in 10 years. |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
"RickH" wrote in message
... On Apr 22, 3:42 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote: Since this is a perennial favorite topic here--"Where we gonna git our energy from?"--I thought it apropos to post this news flash: http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...d=ajl3fRv9AdDI The lede: The U.S. may never need to build new nuclear or coal-fired power plants because renewable energy and improved efficiency can meet future power demand, the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said. To all those red-meat, gotta-build-more-nukes-and-greenhouse-gas-spewing-coal-plants types here (we know who you are), keep in mind: this isn't some granola-eating, tree-hugging enviro-meddler[1] talking, but the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Talk amongst yourselves. [1] That phrase courtesy of the big enviro-meddler (and monkey-wrencher) hisself, Ed Abbey. -- Save the Planet Kill Yourself - motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/) Manufacturing will flow to the countries that can produce the most and cheapest electricity, period. China is building a coal plant every few months (of course the world excludes them from Co2 rules because they are "poor"). We wont need a lot of power simply because we wont be making very many things is the admin's unsaid implication. A country cannot be a powerful manufacturer without making a lot of electricity. I guess electric (essentially coal/nuclear) powered cars are also out of the question. If every household had to re-charge a pair of Chevy Volt's for 8 hours every night it will make our seasonal AC usage look like a pittance. We will regret the day we said no to nuclear investments now, as that is the basis of all this electric car talk. If I were running GM and I heard this, I would stop further investment in the Chevy Volt today, until the admin assured me electricity will be both abundant and cheap in 10 years. =================== If "great country" is defined as manufacturing lots of stuff and to hell with the mess it makes, perhaps it's time for a new paradigm. Ya know what I mean? |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
On Apr 23, 9:34*am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Jim Yanik" wrote in message ... "John Gilmer" wrote in : JY wrote; And we need domestic oil drilling,production and refining,to power all the current petro autos and trucks. The free market is quite good at maintaining the flow of oil to where its needed. * When oil went to $150 a year or so ago, the free market gave the producers a HARD slap. * Now oil is trading around $50. If the government wants to drill for domestic then it can decide to sell its production below market prices. * It's a dumb thing to do but that's the government for you. The gov't isn't the one doing the drilling,it's the one doing the BLOCKING.(Congress) Odd,because the gov't gets revenue from domestic oil production and refining. -- Jim Yanik If you're referring to royalties from leased drilling areas, that's only theoretical so far, although the current admin is trying to fix that.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It's not theoretical. The US govt has received billions in payments from oil producers for the rights to drill and produce oil in areas under govt control. |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
wrote in message
... On Apr 23, 9:34 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Jim Yanik" wrote in message ... "John Gilmer" wrote in : JY wrote; And we need domestic oil drilling,production and refining,to power all the current petro autos and trucks. The free market is quite good at maintaining the flow of oil to where its needed. When oil went to $150 a year or so ago, the free market gave the producers a HARD slap. Now oil is trading around $50. If the government wants to drill for domestic then it can decide to sell its production below market prices. It's a dumb thing to do but that's the government for you. The gov't isn't the one doing the drilling,it's the one doing the BLOCKING.(Congress) Odd,because the gov't gets revenue from domestic oil production and refining. -- Jim Yanik If you're referring to royalties from leased drilling areas, that's only theoretical so far, although the current admin is trying to fix that.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It's not theoretical. The US govt has received billions in payments from oil producers for the rights to drill and produce oil in areas under govt control. ============ Has the government received all the royalties it's entitled to? This is a trick question. |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
On Apr 23, 11:17*am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: wrote in message ... On Apr 23, 9:34 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Jim Yanik" wrote in message .. . "John Gilmer" wrote in : JY wrote; And we need domestic oil drilling,production and refining,to power all the current petro autos and trucks. The free market is quite good at maintaining the flow of oil to where its needed. When oil went to $150 a year or so ago, the free market gave the producers a HARD slap. Now oil is trading around $50. If the government wants to drill for domestic then it can decide to sell its production below market prices. It's a dumb thing to do but that's the government for you. The gov't isn't the one doing the drilling,it's the one doing the BLOCKING.(Congress) Odd,because the gov't gets revenue from domestic oil production and refining. -- Jim Yanik If you're referring to royalties from leased drilling areas, that's only theoretical so far, although the current admin is trying to fix that.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It's not theoretical. *The US govt has received billions in payments from oil producers for the rights to drill and produce oil in areas under govt control. ============ Has the government received all the royalties it's entitled to? *This is a trick question.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Who the hell cares? The obvious point is the govt has received huge amounts of money from leasing oil tracts for drilling. Plus, they get huge amounts of other taxes, income tax being one, from oil that is produced here. That was the point Jim was making. |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
wrote in message
... On Apr 23, 11:17 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Apr 23, 9:34 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Jim Yanik" wrote in message .. . "John Gilmer" wrote in : JY wrote; And we need domestic oil drilling,production and refining,to power all the current petro autos and trucks. The free market is quite good at maintaining the flow of oil to where its needed. When oil went to $150 a year or so ago, the free market gave the producers a HARD slap. Now oil is trading around $50. If the government wants to drill for domestic then it can decide to sell its production below market prices. It's a dumb thing to do but that's the government for you. The gov't isn't the one doing the drilling,it's the one doing the BLOCKING.(Congress) Odd,because the gov't gets revenue from domestic oil production and refining. -- Jim Yanik If you're referring to royalties from leased drilling areas, that's only theoretical so far, although the current admin is trying to fix that.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It's not theoretical. The US govt has received billions in payments from oil producers for the rights to drill and produce oil in areas under govt control. ============ Has the government received all the royalties it's entitled to? This is a trick question.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Who the hell cares? The obvious point is the govt has received huge amounts of money from leasing oil tracts for drilling. Plus, they get huge amounts of other taxes, income tax being one, from oil that is produced here. That was the point Jim was making. ============= I'm not into socialism, so I'm not real thrilled about giving my tax dollars to corporations because they were able to bribe government officials into doing just that. You need to read more. You will now disagree. |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
On Apr 23, 11:42*am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: wrote in message ... On Apr 23, 11:17 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Apr 23, 9:34 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Jim Yanik" wrote in message .. . "John Gilmer" wrote in : JY wrote; And we need domestic oil drilling,production and refining,to power all the current petro autos and trucks. The free market is quite good at maintaining the flow of oil to where its needed. When oil went to $150 a year or so ago, the free market gave the producers a HARD slap. Now oil is trading around $50. If the government wants to drill for domestic then it can decide to sell its production below market prices. It's a dumb thing to do but that's the government for you. The gov't isn't the one doing the drilling,it's the one doing the BLOCKING.(Congress) Odd,because the gov't gets revenue from domestic oil production and refining. -- Jim Yanik If you're referring to royalties from leased drilling areas, that's only theoretical so far, although the current admin is trying to fix that.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It's not theoretical. The US govt has received billions in payments from oil producers for the rights to drill and produce oil in areas under govt control. ============ Has the government received all the royalties it's entitled to? This is a trick question.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Who the hell cares? * *The obvious point is the govt has received huge amounts of money from leasing oil tracts for drilling. * Plus, they get huge amounts of other taxes, income tax being one, from oil that is produced here. * *That was the point Jim was making. ============= I'm not into socialism, so I'm not real thrilled about giving my tax dollars to corporations because they were able to bribe government officials into doing just that. You need to read more. You will now disagree.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - What does any of that have to do with your false claim that the govt collecting money from oil lease payments is all theoretical? They've collected billions over many decades. |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
wrote in message
... On Apr 23, 11:42 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Apr 23, 11:17 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Apr 23, 9:34 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Jim Yanik" wrote in message .. . "John Gilmer" wrote in : JY wrote; And we need domestic oil drilling,production and refining,to power all the current petro autos and trucks. The free market is quite good at maintaining the flow of oil to where its needed. When oil went to $150 a year or so ago, the free market gave the producers a HARD slap. Now oil is trading around $50. If the government wants to drill for domestic then it can decide to sell its production below market prices. It's a dumb thing to do but that's the government for you. The gov't isn't the one doing the drilling,it's the one doing the BLOCKING.(Congress) Odd,because the gov't gets revenue from domestic oil production and refining. -- Jim Yanik If you're referring to royalties from leased drilling areas, that's only theoretical so far, although the current admin is trying to fix that.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It's not theoretical. The US govt has received billions in payments from oil producers for the rights to drill and produce oil in areas under govt control. ============ Has the government received all the royalties it's entitled to? This is a trick question.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Who the hell cares? The obvious point is the govt has received huge amounts of money from leasing oil tracts for drilling. Plus, they get huge amounts of other taxes, income tax being one, from oil that is produced here. That was the point Jim was making. ============= I'm not into socialism, so I'm not real thrilled about giving my tax dollars to corporations because they were able to bribe government officials into doing just that. You need to read more. You will now disagree.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - What does any of that have to do with your false claim that the govt collecting money from oil lease payments is all theoretical? They've collected billions over many decades. ---------------------- Because the gov't is NOT collecting a ****load of what they should've collected, and it's finally being dealt with. It's due to sloppiness and/or corruption. |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
.... Maybe. How can you standardize the review process for the sites themselves, unless the sites are all identical in every pertinent way? There are only so many critters and water/dams/rivers are pretty much the same as well in large part. Meeting any site-specific _PERTINENT_ issues is also pretty trivial exercise if it isn't glommed onto as a roadblock as it has generally been. -- |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
.... Has the government received all the royalties it's entitled to? This is a trick question. That depends largely on whose definition of "entitled" one might choose. -- |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:42:14 -0700, David Nebenzahl wrote:
Since this is a perennial favorite topic here--"Where we gonna git our energy from?"--I thought it apropos to post this news flash: http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...d=ajl3fRv9AdDI The lede: The U.S. may never need to build new nuclear or coal-fired power plants because renewable energy and improved efficiency can meet future power demand, the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said. To all those red-meat, gotta-build-more-nukes-and-greenhouse-gas-spewing-coal-plants types here (we know who you are), keep in mind: this isn't some granola-eating, tree-hugging enviro-meddler[1] talking, but the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Talk amongst yourselves. [1] That phrase courtesy of the big enviro-meddler (and monkey-wrencher) hisself, Ed Abbey. Tell that to the Californians who have to endure roving brown-outs and black-outs. |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
Rick Samuel wrote:
IMO,we need more nuke plants,but don't need any more coal-fired plants. We "need" both. A coal plant can be built in one or two years after approval. A nuke likely would take 7 to 10 years after initial approval. A nuke doesn't need to take 7-10 years, that's just how they do it. Each is a completely different design. A "one size fit all", mass produced nuke plant. ... 30 years ago, yes (although as one who worked as design engineer for a particular reactor vendor in those days, there was more genericity than not, even then. The devil was in the details and that there was no procedure to _reference/incorporate_ from one application to another even the parts that were identical). Now, no. The NRC Chairman gave a pretty pertinent speech just yesterday, actually... http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/speeches/2009/s-09-009.html It's well worth reading but the most pertinent to the subthread points are-- As of today, the NRC has received 17 applications to build 26 commercial power reactors. We expect another three applications to build five more reactors later this calendar year. The current process is a great improvement over the old licensing review procedures, because we use what are called “Combined Operating License” applications — a one-step process for reviewing both the proposed construction and operation of the plant. These applications are expected to take the NRC about 30 months to review, plus about 12 months to complete public hearings. ... I do hope that we can eventually reduce the time required to review these COL applications, without any compromise in safety. But any streamlining of the process must maintain a significant role for public participation. Of course, public participation should be reasonable and responsible. False alarms and baseless fears are not meaningful contributions to the process; and I sincerely hope that reasonable points of view don’t get overwhelmed by sensational, but unsubstantiated, assertions. Unfortunately, the media often contribute to the public’s inability to evaluate these statements, because they don’t shed light on the technical or scientific merits of these claims. I want to come back to that point later on. But first let me say a bit more about the status of new reactor applications. Assuming that a license application meets all of the NRC’s stringent requirements, it is expected that it will take another 44 months or so for construction. And the total price tag, as you may have seen in the press, seems to keep going up. It is now often in the neighborhood of $5 to $7 billion per plant. These all seem like daunting numbers — and they are. But I always say that one of my jobs as Chairman is to put things into perspective. So let me do that now. The first thing to bear in mind is that these plants — if approved — will be licensed for 40 years, with the possibility of a license renewal for another 20 years. Given that about half of the current 104 operating reactor have received or applied for one of these 20-year license renewals, it seems highly likely that many of the proposed new plants would do so as well. To get some perspective on the lifespan and costs of proposed new reactors, consider that the newest Nimitz class aircraft carrier in service, the USS Ronald Reagan, cost more than $4 billion to build 10 years ago. It should have a lifespan of more than 50 years. The oldest active-duty vessel in the U.S. Navy is the Enterprise, which was launched in 1960. It is scheduled for decommissioning within three to five years — which would give it a lifespan of over 50 years. Its construction costs were over $3 billion in today’s dollars. And, by the way, it is powered by eight nuclear reactors So the cost and planning involved in potential new nuclear power plants doesn’t seem so out of proportion when compared to similar projects of comparable scale and complexity, and similar lifetimes. -- |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
On 4/23/2009 10:45 AM Michael Dobony spake thus:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:42:14 -0700, David Nebenzahl wrote: Since this is a perennial favorite topic here--"Where we gonna git our energy from?"--I thought it apropos to post this news flash: http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...d=ajl3fRv9AdDI The lede: The U.S. may never need to build new nuclear or coal-fired power plants because renewable energy and improved efficiency can meet future power demand, the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said. To all those red-meat, gotta-build-more-nukes-and-greenhouse-gas-spewing-coal-plants types here (we know who you are), keep in mind: this isn't some granola-eating, tree-hugging enviro-meddler[1] talking, but the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Talk amongst yourselves. [1] That phrase courtesy of the big enviro-meddler (and monkey-wrencher) hisself, Ed Abbey. Tell that to the Californians who have to endure roving brown-outs and black-outs. What "roving" (I think you meant "rolling") brownouts and blackouts? That hasn't happened here since the Enron era, and at that time they had *nothing* to do with any actual lack of supply and *everything* to do with some greedy *******s' manipulation of the electricity market. Sheesh. Just believe everything you hear on right-wing talk radio ... -- Save the Planet Kill Yourself - motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/) |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote: What "roving" (I think you meant "rolling") brownouts and blackouts? That hasn't happened here since the Enron era, and at that time they had *nothing* to do with any actual lack of supply and *everything* to do with some greedy *******s' manipulation of the electricity market. No it had to do largely with California's desire to legislate wishes instead of reality (something that continues to this under Ahnold). They made the integrated companies break off into two separate entities (one generation and one distribution/delivery). They let the generators charge whatever they wanted and kept the delivery (since that was where the citizens were getting charged and we can't get them ****ed at us) closely regulated. The electicity went other places where the money was and California was hoist on its own petard. Sheesh. Just believe everything you hear on right-wing talk radio ... -- "Distracting a politician from governing is like distracting a bear from eating your baby." --PJ O'Rourke |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
On 4/23/2009 11:32 AM Kurt Ullman spake thus:
In article , David Nebenzahl wrote: What "roving" (I think you meant "rolling") brownouts and blackouts? That hasn't happened here since the Enron era, and at that time they had *nothing* to do with any actual lack of supply and *everything* to do with some greedy *******s' manipulation of the electricity market. No it had to do largely with California's desire to legislate wishes instead of reality (something that continues to this under Ahnold). They made the integrated companies break off into two separate entities (one generation and one distribution/delivery). They let the generators charge whatever they wanted and kept the delivery (since that was where the citizens were getting charged and we can't get them ****ed at us) closely regulated. The electicity went other places where the money was and California was hoist on its own petard. Thank you for confirming what I wrote: "greedy *******s' maniuplation of the electricity market". Why didn't you just say "I agree"? By the bye, it should be pointed out that California's disastrous flirtation with electricity deregulation was masterminded by a *Democrat*, Steve Peace, with the blessings of then-governator Gray Davis (also a Democrat). -- Save the Planet Kill Yourself - motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/) |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
On Apr 23, 2:48*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 4/23/2009 11:32 AM Kurt Ullman spake thus: In article , *David Nebenzahl wrote: What "roving" (I think you meant "rolling") brownouts and blackouts? That hasn't happened here since the Enron era, and at that time they had *nothing* to do with any actual lack of supply and *everything* to do with some greedy *******s' manipulation of the electricity market. * No it had to do largely with California's desire to legislate wishes instead of reality (something that continues to this under Ahnold). They made the integrated companies break off into two separate entities (one generation and one distribution/delivery). They let the generators charge whatever they wanted and kept the delivery (since that was where the citizens were getting charged and we can't get them ****ed at us) closely regulated. The electicity went other places where the money was and California was hoist on its own petard. Thank you for confirming what I wrote: "greedy *******s' maniuplation of the electricity market". Why didn't you just say "I agree"? By the bye, it should be pointed out that California's disastrous flirtation with electricity deregulation was masterminded by a *Democrat*, Steve Peace, with the blessings of then-governator Gray Davis (also a Democrat). -- You missed the essential element of his point. And that was that CA only partially de-regulated the electric markets. The consumer side of the business continued to have fixed rates, while CA required electric companies to buy electricity in the unregulated spot markets. Gee, it doesn't take an economic genius to figure out where that will lead..... Bankruptcy and lights out. Save the Planet Kill Yourself - motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote: On 4/23/2009 11:32 AM Kurt Ullman spake thus: In article , David Nebenzahl wrote: What "roving" (I think you meant "rolling") brownouts and blackouts? That hasn't happened here since the Enron era, and at that time they had *nothing* to do with any actual lack of supply and *everything* to do with some greedy *******s' manipulation of the electricity market. No it had to do largely with California's desire to legislate wishes instead of reality (something that continues to this under Ahnold). They made the integrated companies break off into two separate entities (one generation and one distribution/delivery). They let the generators charge whatever they wanted and kept the delivery (since that was where the citizens were getting charged and we can't get them ****ed at us) closely regulated. The electicity went other places where the money was and California was hoist on its own petard. Thank you for confirming what I wrote: "greedy *******s' maniuplation of the electricity market". Why didn't you just say "I agree"? Becuase I don't. It wasn't greed it was normal commerce. Sorta shows how detached from the marketplace the regulated utilities are in real life. Or more likely shows WHY the regulated utilities should be regulated completely or not at all. This half way stuff did not work out all that well. -- "Distracting a politician from governing is like distracting a bear from eating your baby." --PJ O'Rourke |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
If "great country" is defined as manufacturing lots of stuff and to hell with the mess it makes, perhaps it's time for a new paradigm. Ya know what I mean? No, not exactly. If you mean to indicate the U.S., you should remember the United States makes more than any other country yet it has the cleanest environment of any heavily-industrialized nation. By every objective standard, industry in the U.S. has gotten cleaner every year since the late '60s (probably since about 1890). This curve is, however, an example to many of "steady progress is the enemy of the perfect." |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
dpb wrote:
.... To get some perspective on the lifespan and costs of proposed new reactors, consider that the newest Nimitz class aircraft carrier in service, the USS Ronald Reagan, cost more than $4 billion to build 10 years ago. It should have a lifespan of more than 50 years. The oldest active-duty vessel in the U.S. Navy is the Enterprise, which was launched in 1960. It is scheduled for decommissioning within three to five years — which would give it a lifespan of over 50 years. Its construction costs were over $3 billion in today’s dollars. And, by the way, it is powered by eight nuclear reactors So the cost and planning involved in potential new nuclear power plants doesn’t seem so out of proportion when compared to similar projects of comparable scale and complexity, and similar lifetimes. And, just for some additional perspective (and since I really didn't know and got curious), the total output power of the eight reactors is (according to Wikipedia) 210 MW. Assuming something on the order of 25% overall efficiency, that would translate to a total of roughly 900 MWt reactor power. Thus each reactor would be roughly 110 MWt or so. In comparison, a current-generation commercial reactor would be roughly 1000-1200 MWe or about 3000 MWt. So, the plant turbines and other secondary systems have to be sized capable of handling 5X the size of the carrier. By another niche in history the NSS Savannah was about 20,000 shp. It preceded my career w/ the reactor vendor by about 10 years, unfortunately, so I missed out on it. Just an interesting (at least to me) sidelight... :) |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
We need to tell the greenie tree huggers to shut the FERC
up. -- Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .. "Robert Neville" wrote in message ... It doesn't take 7-10 years to design and build a custom nuke plant. The majority of that time is spent on BS environmental impact studies and other legal roadblocks. You're right - a standardized reactor design and a single series of reviews could reduce that to a couple of years. |
FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
... We need to tell the greenie tree huggers to shut the FERC up. Sounds like you're an expert. Do you think the Shoreham nuclear plant should've been allowed to operate? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter