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/)

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

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/)

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. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

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...

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

(Malcolm Hoar) 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.

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.


if you're out of work,you don't need to be driving around in a car.
Just stay home and wait for your government handout.Walk to get groceries.
Lights out at 8 PM,thermostat set to 65 in winter,82 in summer.
(but the White House stays comfy...)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

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"?

"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****.

"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.

"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.

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.

--

"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

"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.

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.

--

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

"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.

"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?

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.

"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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

--

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.

--

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.

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.

--

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/)

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

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/)

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 -

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

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."

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...

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.

"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?