(CNN) -- Former congressman Charlie Wilson of Texas died Wednesday at age 76, a
Texas hospital said.

The 12-term Democratic congressman, who served Texas' 2nd Congressional
district, was pronounced dead at 12:16 p.m. after suffering cardiopulmonary
arrest in the emergency room of Memorial Health System of East Texas, the Lufkin
hospital said in a news release.



Semi-on topic due to the amount of metal sent to Afghanistan during the Russian
occupation?

On Feb 10, 3:21*pm, cavelamb wrote:
(CNN) -- Former congressman Charlie Wilson of Texas died Wednesday at age 76, a
Texas hospital said.

The 12-term Democratic congressman, who served Texas' 2nd Congressional
district, was pronounced dead at 12:16 p.m. after suffering cardiopulmonary
arrest in the emergency room of Memorial Health System of East Texas, the Lufkin
hospital said in a news release.

Semi-on topic due to the amount of metal sent to Afghanistan during the Russian
occupation?

And all the metal that we are having to deal with now.

American weapons killing American soldiers.

It gives the word "irony" a new meaning.

TMT

cavelamb wrote:

(CNN) -- Former congressman Charlie Wilson of Texas died Wednesday at age 76, a
Texas hospital said.

The 12-term Democratic congressman, who served Texas' 2nd Congressional
district, was pronounced dead at 12:16 p.m. after suffering cardiopulmonary
arrest in the emergency room of Memorial Health System of East Texas, the Lufkin
hospital said in a news release.



Semi-on topic due to the amount of metal sent to Afghanistan during the Russian
occupation?


Is this the Charlie Wilson of "Charlie Wilson's War"?

Wes

Wes wrote:
cavelamb wrote:

(CNN) -- Former congressman Charlie Wilson of Texas died Wednesday at age 76, a
Texas hospital said.

The 12-term Democratic congressman, who served Texas' 2nd Congressional
district, was pronounced dead at 12:16 p.m. after suffering cardiopulmonary
arrest in the emergency room of Memorial Health System of East Texas, the Lufkin
hospital said in a news release.



Semi-on topic due to the amount of metal sent to Afghanistan during the Russian
occupation?


Is this the Charlie Wilson of "Charlie Wilson's War"?

Wes


Yep.

--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/

sorta on topic, "core embrittlement".
prolly if there's a failure the clean up will be at taxpayer expense, like
what happend with wall street. corporations enjoy the benefits of risk
taking but palm off the losses.

b.w.



-Obama's Nuclear Giveaway

Buried in the budget is a plan to underwrite the nuclear industry's revival.
[http://motherjones.com/environment/2...lear-giveaway]
- Palin backs Obama's call for new nuclear power plants
Published on Thursday, February 11, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
Vermont's Radioactive Nightmare

by Harvey Wasserman

Like a decayed flotilla of rickety steamers, at least 27 of America's 104
aging atomic reactors are known to be leaking radioactive tritium, which is
linked to cancer if inhaled or ingested through the throat or skin.

The fallout has been fiercest at Vermont Yankee, where a flood of cover-ups
has infuriated and terrified near neighbors who say the reactor was never
meant to operate more than 30 years, and must now shut.

In 2007 one of Yankee's 22 cooling towers simply collapsed due to rot.

Now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
confirmedhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/nuclear_regulatory_commission/index.html?inline=nyt-org
[1] tritium levels in a monitoring well at Vernon to be 3.5 times the
federal safety standard. The leaks apparently came from underground pipes
whose very existence was recently denied by VY officials in under-oath
testimony at a public hearing. Vermont's pro-nuclear Republican Governor Jim
Douglas has termed the event "a breach of trust that cannot be tolerated."

Yankee is owned by Entergy, a Mississippi-based consortium that also owns
New York's Indian Point reactor, which suffered an internal gusher of
radioactive water in May, 2009. Another leak has just been found at Oconee
in South Carolina. Illinois' Braidwood leaked so many millions of gallons of
tritium-laced water that its owner, Exelon, was forced to buy a new
municipal water system for a nearby town.

Entergy says none of Yankee's tritium has been found in local drinking water
or in the Connecticut River, which supplies the plant's cooling water.
Vernon sits near Vermont's southeast border with Massachusetts, across the
river from New Hampshire. "The existence of tritium in such low levels does
not present a risk to public health or safety whatsoever," says the
company's Robert Williams.

But VY is just the latest of more than two dozen U.S. nuclear plants---many
built in the 1960s and '70s---to be found with leaking tritium.

Last year at New Jersey's Oyster Creek, tritium was reported leaking a
second time shortly after Exelon got it a 20-year license extension.
Entergy's Pilgrim reactor, at Plymouth, Massachusetts, has recently leaked
tritium into the ground.

The NRC's Neil Sheehan has confirmed leaks involving 27 of 104 licensed US
reactors, and says that probably doesn't account for all of them. At Yankee,
Oyster Creek and elsewhere, rotting pipes are the likeliest culprit, but no
one is 100% certain.

The epidemic has escalated public dismay. Vermont state Representative Tony
Klein, chair of House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, says that
"when you have public officials that the public depends on for their health
and welfare making casual statements that a radioactive substance is not
harmful to you, I think that's ludicrous."

For decades the Encylopedia Britannica, National Academy of Sciences and
other primary scientific bodies have confirmed that no dose of radiation, no
matter how small, can ever be deemed perfectly safe. "There is no threshold
of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated
to be harmless or beneficial," says Richard R. Monson, associate dean for
professional education and professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School
of Public Health.

Thus far the NRC has granted a series of license renewals to aging reactors.
But by virtue of a long-standing agreement with Entergy, the Vermont
Legislature can deny Yankee's request for a 20-year extension. In the 1990s
local groups like the Citizen's Awareness Network (http://www.vtcitizen.org/
[2]) helped force down the Yankee Rowe plant on the Deerfield River in
Massachusetts, about 25 miles southwest of Vernon. The root cause was
concern over embrittlement of the elderly reactor's core, a key to the
future of all other aging nukes.

In Vermont, angry debate has also arisen over Entergy's dwindling
decommissioning fund, which has been slashed by a declining stock market.
Entergy has proposed spinning off plant ownership to a shell corporation
whose assets may be even more dubious. But area residents also fear Entergy
may be pushing Yankee operations in an attempt to find the source of its
leaks.

With VY operating under duress, Katz and others report an increasing wave of
concern among local citizens starting to think seriously about how they
might evacuate if Entergy keeps pushing. "This plant appears to be leaking
from its reactor piping, but they don't really know where," she says. "They
don't want to shut down because they're afraid they'll never get back up.
Entergy is choosing to protect its bottom line rather than the health and
safety of our community."

Indeed, a desperate national industry now pushing for massive federal
subsidies to build new reactors may not survive a flood of elderly clunkers
being forced to close by the weight of their own contamination. "This is an
industry trying to build a new fleet of Titanics while the old ones are
sinking," says Katz.

Amidst the gusher of tritium leaks, Governor Douglas wants to postpone the
legislature's vote on VY's license extension. But his term expires in
November, and all five Democratic gubernatorial candidates are pledged to a
Yankee shutdown.

What happens next will be defined by fierce grassroots activism crashing
into a flood of corporate money in support of a rickety old reactor being
operated with increasing recklessness.

The highly hyped "reactor renaissance"---and much more---may hang in the
balance. Stay tuned.

Harvey Wasserman is Senior Advisor to Greenpeace USA and the Nuclear
Information & Resource Service, and Senior Editor of
www.freepress.orghttp://www.freepress.org/ [3] , where this article first
appeared. His SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH is at
www.harveywasserman.comhttp://www.harveywasserman.com/ [4].

On Feb 11, 7:20*pm, "William Wixon" wrote:

*Published on Thursday, February 11, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
Vermont's Radioactive Nightmare

by Harvey Wasserman



Do not eat bananas.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Feb 11, 7:20 pm, "William Wixon" wrote:

Published on Thursday, February 11, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
Vermont's Radioactive Nightmare

by Harvey Wasserman



Do not eat bananas.

Dan

On a similar vein I recall an argument that it was OK to sleep with one
person but not with two.

On 2/11/2010 2:41 PM, newshound wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Feb 11, 7:20 pm, "William Wixon" wrote:

Published on Thursday, February 11, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
Vermont's Radioactive Nightmare

by Harvey Wasserman



Do not eat bananas.

Dan

On a similar vein I recall an argument that it was OK to sleep with one
person but not with two.


"Either way it's OK to wake up with yourself." - Billy Joel

--Winston

"William Wixon" wrote in message
...
sorta on topic, "core embrittlement".
prolly if there's a failure the clean up will be at taxpayer expense, like
what happend with wall street. corporations enjoy the benefits of risk
taking but palm off the losses.

b.w.

The $30 billion dollars in the federal Nuclear Waste Trust Fund
will take care of any problems. Decomissioning of nuclear power
plants has already been paid for by tax payers.


Best Regards
Tom.

wrote in message
...
On Feb 11, 7:20 pm, "William Wixon" wrote:

Published on Thursday, February 11, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
Vermont's Radioactive Nightmare

by Harvey Wasserman



Do not eat bananas.

Dan


god's fruit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGMuIyBK5P4

"azotic" wrote in message
...


The $30 billion dollars in the federal Nuclear Waste Trust Fund
will take care of any problems. Decomissioning of nuclear power
plants has already been paid for by tax payers.


Best Regards
Tom.



i bet almost everyone here is smarter than me. that's why i TRY to not
post, post anything at all, but especially politically/emotionally charged
issues. seriously, i do try. (and it doesn't seem possible to make outlook
express to filter crossposted newsgroups) there often are posts that **** me
off so much i can't help myself but respond somehow. i really do wish i
could mind my own business and post VERY few messages and of those strictly
adhere to metalworking topics, so, i apologize for posting this and all my
other off topic posts. tom, your post makes me wonder. you seem to know a
lot. can you explain to me why this is (article below) if what you said
above is true?

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbc...NEWS/906200323

see, the way i see this one is they're trying to push off the costs to your
grandchildren while keeping a peppy looking bottom line for their current
investors. they're saying there's ample time for the fund to recover, sorry
to say i do not believe them, that's some sort of bull**** story they're
putting out. some sort of legal wriggling.

b.w.

Yep - passed away here - a local good guy. Ask anyone in to the kitchen
table and talk any subjects. His beloved was gracious as can be.
Down to earth and never let it get to his head.

Martin

cavelamb wrote:
(CNN) -- Former congressman Charlie Wilson of Texas died Wednesday at
age 76, a Texas hospital said.

The 12-term Democratic congressman, who served Texas' 2nd Congressional
district, was pronounced dead at 12:16 p.m. after suffering
cardiopulmonary arrest in the emergency room of Memorial Health System
of East Texas, the Lufkin hospital said in a news release.



Semi-on topic due to the amount of metal sent to Afghanistan during the
Russian
occupation?

This was during the Red Russians invading Afghanistan - think Rambo...

Martin

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 10, 3:21 pm, cavelamb wrote:
(CNN) -- Former congressman Charlie Wilson of Texas died Wednesday at age 76, a
Texas hospital said.

The 12-term Democratic congressman, who served Texas' 2nd Congressional
district, was pronounced dead at 12:16 p.m. after suffering cardiopulmonary
arrest in the emergency room of Memorial Health System of East Texas, the Lufkin
hospital said in a news release.

Semi-on topic due to the amount of metal sent to Afghanistan during the Russian
occupation?

And all the metal that we are having to deal with now.

American weapons killing American soldiers.

It gives the word "irony" a new meaning.

TMT

The one!
Martin

Wes wrote:
cavelamb wrote:

(CNN) -- Former congressman Charlie Wilson of Texas died Wednesday at age 76, a
Texas hospital said.

The 12-term Democratic congressman, who served Texas' 2nd Congressional
district, was pronounced dead at 12:16 p.m. after suffering cardiopulmonary
arrest in the emergency room of Memorial Health System of East Texas, the Lufkin
hospital said in a news release.



Semi-on topic due to the amount of metal sent to Afghanistan during the Russian
occupation?


Is this the Charlie Wilson of "Charlie Wilson's War"?

Wes

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 10, 3:21 pm, cavelamb wrote:
(CNN) -- Former congressman Charlie Wilson of Texas died Wednesday at age 76, a
Texas hospital said.

The 12-term Democratic congressman, who served Texas' 2nd Congressional
district, was pronounced dead at 12:16 p.m. after suffering cardiopulmonary
arrest in the emergency room of Memorial Health System of East Texas, the Lufkin
hospital said in a news release.

Semi-on topic due to the amount of metal sent to Afghanistan during the Russian
occupation?

And all the metal that we are having to deal with now.

American weapons killing American soldiers.

It gives the word "irony" a new meaning.

TMT


Not at all.
That was all used up a decade ago.

I think this is mostly Soviet supplied stuff now.

cavelamb wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 10, 3:21 pm, cavelamb wrote:
(CNN) -- Former congressman Charlie Wilson of Texas died Wednesday at
age 76, a
Texas hospital said.

The 12-term Democratic congressman, who served Texas' 2nd Congressional
district, was pronounced dead at 12:16 p.m. after suffering
cardiopulmonary
arrest in the emergency room of Memorial Health System of East Texas,
the Lufkin
hospital said in a news release.

Semi-on topic due to the amount of metal sent to Afghanistan during
the Russian
occupation?

And all the metal that we are having to deal with now.

American weapons killing American soldiers.

It gives the word "irony" a new meaning.

TMT


Not at all.
That was all used up a decade ago.

I think this is mostly Soviet supplied stuff now.


Payback is a bitch, ain't it!

On Feb 11, 10:02*pm, cavelamb wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 10, 3:21 pm, cavelamb wrote:
(CNN) -- Former congressman Charlie Wilson of Texas died Wednesday at age 76, a
Texas hospital said.

The 12-term Democratic congressman, who served Texas' 2nd Congressional
district, was pronounced dead at 12:16 p.m. after suffering cardiopulmonary
arrest in the emergency room of Memorial Health System of East Texas, the Lufkin
hospital said in a news release.

Semi-on topic due to the amount of metal sent to Afghanistan during the Russian
occupation?

And all the metal that we are having to deal with now.

American weapons killing American soldiers.

It gives the word "irony" a new meaning.

TMT

Not at all.
That was all used up a decade ago.

I think this is mostly Soviet supplied stuff now.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You sure about that?

The Government isn't.

http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1057196.html

And some background...

http://www.slate.com/id/116582/

Yes there is Soviet equivalents out there along with others.

But the American Stingers are still a threat.

TMT

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:08:25 -0800, the infamous Winston
scrawled the following:

On 2/11/2010 2:41 PM, newshound wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Feb 11, 7:20 pm, "William Wixon" wrote:

Published on Thursday, February 11, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
Vermont's Radioactive Nightmare

Due to the timing, I was wondering "Is this the Left's reply to the
skeptics' bringing out the CO2 scandals and ruining their Globular
Swarming scam?" but it appears to be real. I can't help but wonder if
they would have caught it far earlier if the Greenies hadn't nearly
forced nukes out of existence.


Do not eat bananas.

Dan

On a similar vein I recall an argument that it was OK to sleep with one
person but not with two.


"Either way it's OK to wake up with yourself." - Billy Joel

In parts of Utah, it's "The more, the marry 'er!"

--
In order that people may be happy in their work, these three things are
needed: They must be fit for it. They must not do too much of it. And
they must have a sense of success in it.
-- John Ruskin, Pre-Raphaelitism, 1850

Larry Jaques wrote:

Due to the timing, I was wondering "Is this the Left's reply to the
skeptics' bringing out the CO2 scandals and ruining their Globular
Swarming scam?" but it appears to be real. I can't help but wonder if
they would have caught it far earlier if the Greenies hadn't nearly
forced nukes out of existence.

I have a feeling that there is a lot of pressure to keep running old nuke plants due to
the lack of new ones coming on line.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Wes wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:

Due to the timing, I was wondering "Is this the Left's reply to the
skeptics' bringing out the CO2 scandals and ruining their Globular
Swarming scam?" but it appears to be real. I can't help but wonder
if they would have caught it far earlier if the Greenies hadn't
nearly forced nukes out of existence.

I have a feeling that there is a lot of pressure to keep running old
nuke plants due to the lack of new ones coming on line.

I don't know why you'd think that.
It isn't true, in any event.


Advantages of longer-term operation
The study concludes that the principal advantages of longer-term operation
are economic in that:

a.. Extending the life of a major generating asset avoids the need for
immediate investment in new generating capacity.
b.. The capital costs of plant life management for LTO will be much
smaller than investment in any type of replacement capacity, although there
might be a need for some additional investment in plant upgrading.
c.. Per kWh costs for waste management and decommissioning can be reduced.
d.. With nuclear fuel costs being generally lower and more stable than
fossil fuel costs, this means that LTO can be expected to provide
electricity at a lower cost than any other available option, which has a
clear benefit to the national economy.
During the operating lifetime of several decades, it will often be possible
to enhance plant safety levels by upgrading systems, structures and
components (SSCs). Some such upgrades may be required by regulators, while
others will be made by plant operators as part of regular maintenance or in
pursuit of improved operating performance. Thus, while a nuclear power plant
(NPP) may have been in operation for 30 or 40 years, many of its SSCs will
be much younger. LTO helps to justify the investment in such upgrades, which
means that it can also help to raise safety levels.

Longer-term operation of existing nuclear power plants contributes to
sustainability by maintaining security and stability of energy supply and
the diversity of energy sources; throughout, safety remains of paramount
importance. Furthermore, LTO can provide nuclear energy without the
significant environmental impacts that would be created by alternative power
generation options (notably CO2 emissions). Most countries with operating
NPPs consider that nuclear energy contributes to the sustainability of their
overall energy supply system, in that it minimises the long-term and
irreversible impacts on the environment of meeting current energy demand.

http://www.nea.fr/html/pub/newslette...anagement.html


--
John R. Carroll

http://www.ge-energy.com/prod_serv/p...tors/esbwr.htm

http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclea...ap1000_ec.html

--
John R. Carroll

Wes wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:

Due to the timing, I was wondering "Is this the Left's reply to the
skeptics' bringing out the CO2 scandals and ruining their Globular
Swarming scam?" but it appears to be real. I can't help but wonder if
they would have caught it far earlier if the Greenies hadn't nearly
forced nukes out of existence.

I have a feeling that there is a lot of pressure to keep running old nuke plants due to
the lack of new ones coming on line.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

That is one of the reasons. Westinghouse has a nice design in a new
unit. The problem is that the left has demonized nukes for so long and
made it damn near impossible to build new ones that they have to wring
the guts out of the existing units.

Now if some of the fools out there would repeal the ban on reprocessing
fuel that Carter signed and get a few new plants started the energy
problems (as far as electricity) would be taken care of in many areas,
and be far cleaner than ANY other generation technology to boot.

Reprocess a lot of the current waste fuel in this country and the price
of operation would drop considerably. By the time you actually processed
it down to true waste the remainder from one reactor the end waste would
fit into a 55 gallon drum and have less radiation than ambient background.

I love the folks who point out past spills and accidents as if they are
based on current designs. Considering that the newest plant operating in
the US is running a design that is almost 40 years old. (Watts Bar 1-
Came on line in 1996 but construction began in 1973!!!)

Personally I would love one of the mini-vault design units that are on
the drawing boards. A complete self controlled unit that is roughly the
size of a mini-van that gets buried in the ground and runs 7-10 years
without any human intervention. (Toshiba 4S and Hyperion)

They have on both sites about how the fact that they are buried and use
VERY low grade fuel makes them poor terrorist targets. The anti-nukes
say that a terrorist could dig one up and make a bomb. The easy solution
to this is to install the unit in the middle of a neighbor hood of avid
soap opera and reality show viewers and connect up a signal that says
someone is tampering with the power for days of our lives, dallas, ricky
lake, american idol or whatever the current shows are...






--
Steve W.

Steve W. wrote:
Wes wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:

Due to the timing, I was wondering "Is this the Left's reply to the
skeptics' bringing out the CO2 scandals and ruining their Globular
Swarming scam?" but it appears to be real. I can't help but wonder
if they would have caught it far earlier if the Greenies hadn't
nearly forced nukes out of existence.

I have a feeling that there is a lot of pressure to keep running old
nuke plants due to the lack of new ones coming on line.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

That is one of the reasons. Westinghouse has a nice design in a new
unit. The problem is that the left has demonized nukes for so long and
made it damn near impossible to build new ones that they have to wring
the guts out of the existing units.

"Most of these were built by regulated utilities, often state-based, which
meant that they put the capital cost (whatever it turned out to be after,
for example, delays) into their rate base and amortised it against power
sales. Their consumers bore the risk and paid the capital cost. (With
electricity deregulation in some states, the shareholders bear any risk of
capital overruns and power is sold into competitive markets.)"




Now if some of the fools out there would repeal the ban on
reprocessing fuel that Carter signed and get a few new plants started
the energy problems (as far as electricity) would be taken care of in
many areas, and be far cleaner than ANY other generation technology
to boot.

Reprocess a lot of the current waste fuel in this country and the
price of operation would drop considerably. By the time you actually
processed it down to true waste the remainder from one reactor the
end waste would fit into a 55 gallon drum and have less radiation
than ambient background.

I love the folks who point out past spills and accidents as if they
are based on current designs. Considering that the newest plant
operating in the US is running a design that is almost 40 years old.
(Watts Bar 1- Came on line in 1996 but construction began in 1973!!!)

"Almost all the US nuclear generating capacity comes from reactors built
between 1967 and 1990. There have been no new construction starts since
1977, largely because for a number of years gas generation was considered
more economically attractive and because construction schedules were
frequently extended by opposition, compounded by heightened safety fears
following the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. A further PWR - Watts Bar
2 - is expected to start up by 2013 following Tennessee Valley Authority's
decision in 2007 to complete the construction of the unit. "

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html

--
John R. Carroll

John R. Carroll wrote:
Steve W. wrote:
Wes wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:

Due to the timing, I was wondering "Is this the Left's reply to the
skeptics' bringing out the CO2 scandals and ruining their Globular
Swarming scam?" but it appears to be real. I can't help but wonder
if they would have caught it far earlier if the Greenies hadn't
nearly forced nukes out of existence.
I have a feeling that there is a lot of pressure to keep running old
nuke plants due to the lack of new ones coming on line.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
That is one of the reasons. Westinghouse has a nice design in a new
unit. The problem is that the left has demonized nukes for so long and
made it damn near impossible to build new ones that they have to wring
the guts out of the existing units.

"Most of these were built by regulated utilities, often state-based, which
meant that they put the capital cost (whatever it turned out to be after,
for example, delays) into their rate base and amortised it against power
sales. Their consumers bore the risk and paid the capital cost. (With
electricity deregulation in some states, the shareholders bear any risk of
capital overruns and power is sold into competitive markets.)"



Now if some of the fools out there would repeal the ban on
reprocessing fuel that Carter signed and get a few new plants started
the energy problems (as far as electricity) would be taken care of in
many areas, and be far cleaner than ANY other generation technology
to boot.

Reprocess a lot of the current waste fuel in this country and the
price of operation would drop considerably. By the time you actually
processed it down to true waste the remainder from one reactor the
end waste would fit into a 55 gallon drum and have less radiation
than ambient background.

I love the folks who point out past spills and accidents as if they
are based on current designs. Considering that the newest plant
operating in the US is running a design that is almost 40 years old.
(Watts Bar 1- Came on line in 1996 but construction began in 1973!!!)

"Almost all the US nuclear generating capacity comes from reactors built
between 1967 and 1990. There have been no new construction starts since
1977, largely because for a number of years gas generation was considered
more economically attractive and because construction schedules were
frequently extended by opposition, compounded by heightened safety fears
following the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. A further PWR - Watts Bar
2 - is expected to start up by 2013 following Tennessee Valley Authority's
decision in 2007 to complete the construction of the unit. "

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html


Note the "There have been no new construction starts since 1977" item
and then tell me how they can also state "Almost all the US nuclear
generating capacity comes from reactors built between 1967 and 1990"

Sort of like saying that most people drive cars made in 1990 but that
they stopped making cars in 1977....


--
Steve W.

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:40:20 -0500, "Steve W."
wrote:


Note the "There have been no new construction starts since 1977" item
and then tell me how they can also state "Almost all the US nuclear
generating capacity comes from reactors built between 1967 and 1990"

Sort of like saying that most people drive cars made in 1990 but that
they stopped making cars in 1977....

There's a simple explanation for that - the normal long construction
time for a nuke plant, and NIMBY's.

They might have started in 1977, and it would normally take them three
or four years to complete. Then some environmentalist sues, and they
have to stop for a few years while that all gets hashed out. Then
another one comes up with a different angle and that suit buys another
two years...

The plant is built and fueled and ready to split atoms for the first
time - Then the NIMBY's sue because the emergency plan isn't good
enough, and the guards aren't trained well enough...

And they finally go online in 1990.

-- Bruce --

Bruce L. Bergman wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:40:20 -0500, "Steve W."
wrote:


Note the "There have been no new construction starts since 1977" item
and then tell me how they can also state "Almost all the US nuclear
generating capacity comes from reactors built between 1967 and 1990"

Sort of like saying that most people drive cars made in 1990 but that
they stopped making cars in 1977....

There's a simple explanation for that - the normal long construction
time for a nuke plant, and NIMBY's.

They might have started in 1977, and it would normally take them three
or four years to complete. Then some environmentalist sues, and they
have to stop for a few years while that all gets hashed out. Then
another one comes up with a different angle and that suit buys another
two years...

The plant is built and fueled and ready to split atoms for the first
time - Then the NIMBY's sue because the emergency plan isn't good
enough, and the guards aren't trained well enough...

And they finally go online in 1990.

They also ran out of financing regularly.
Once utility bonds backed by customers were out of the picture, the
shareholders of the utility company were on the hook.
Debt covenant's frequently included time lines. Also, the oil and gas
industries hated these things. People think the greenies were the cause of
delay after delay. That is true but only to the extent that Big Oil was
willing to provide money and research. The oil and gas industry has also had
big fat subsidies from the government that caused natural gas, for instance,
and the necessary plant infrastructure to be cheap. The trouble with that
was that once committed to gas fired plant, prices suddenly went through the
roof. Imagine that!
LOL

One of GE's new designs is modular and can be built from start to
electricity in three years. It's also inherently "safe".
There are currently ( A/O 2008) 41 or 42 nuclear generating facilities in
various stages of completion. The hold up will be financing some of them.
The industry has been extended 36 billion dollars in loan guarantees from
the feds and they'd like another hundred billion. I say give them the
guarantees and reregulate the industry. It would have been a better use of
the financial leverage the American people have than giving GM and Chrysler
actual money, that's for sure.



--
John R. Carroll

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:43:20 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Larry Jaques wrote:

Due to the timing, I was wondering "Is this the Left's reply to the
skeptics' bringing out the CO2 scandals and ruining their Globular
Swarming scam?" but it appears to be real. I can't help but wonder if
they would have caught it far earlier if the Greenies hadn't nearly
forced nukes out of existence.

I have a feeling that there is a lot of pressure to keep running old nuke plants due to
the lack of new ones coming on line.

I think there are 26 more due soon. Nope, 31 through 2011.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-applications.pdf
We only need several hundred more to replace the coal crappers.

--
In order that people may be happy in their work, these three things are
needed: They must be fit for it. They must not do too much of it. And
they must have a sense of success in it.
-- John Ruskin, Pre-Raphaelitism, 1850

Bruce L. Bergman wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:40:20 -0500, "Steve W."
wrote:


Note the "There have been no new construction starts since 1977" item
and then tell me how they can also state "Almost all the US nuclear
generating capacity comes from reactors built between 1967 and 1990"

Sort of like saying that most people drive cars made in 1990 but that
they stopped making cars in 1977....

There's a simple explanation for that - the normal long construction
time for a nuke plant, and NIMBY's.

They might have started in 1977, and it would normally take them three
or four years to complete. Then some environmentalist sues, and they
have to stop for a few years while that all gets hashed out. Then
another one comes up with a different angle and that suit buys another
two years...

The plant is built and fueled and ready to split atoms for the first
time - Then the NIMBY's sue because the emergency plan isn't good
enough, and the guards aren't trained well enough...

And they finally go online in 1990.

-- Bruce --

You forgot the elections in between where the newly elected folks decide
the plant shouldn't continue...

--
Steve W.