#Gas prices soar, posing threats to families
3975 Dead
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/business/27cnd-gas.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Gas Prices Soar, Posing a Threat to Family Budget
David Ahntholz for The New York Times
Phyllis Berry, a factory worker in Cleveland, is taking her children,
including daughter, Cirenna, 9, to the movies less often.
Article Tools Sponsored By
By JAD MOUAWAD
Published: February 27, 2008
Gasoline prices, which for months lagged behind the big run-up in the
price of oil, are suddenly rising quickly, with some experts saying
they could approach $4 a gallon by spring. Diesel is hitting new
records daily, and crude oil rose above $102 in trading Wednesday
after settling at a record high of $100.88 a barrel on Tuesday.
The increases could not come at a worse time for the economy. With
growth slowing, energy increases that were once easily absorbed by
consumers are now more likely to act as a drag on household budgets,
leaving people with less money to spend elsewhere. These costs could
worsen the nation’s economic woes, piling a fresh energy shock on top
of the turmoil in credit and housing.
“The effect of high oil prices today could be the difference between
having a recession and not having a recession,” said Kenneth S.
Rogoff, a Harvard economist.
The depth of the nation’s economic problems became clearer Tuesday
with the release of figures showing that prices at the producer level
rose 1 percent in January from December, driven in large measure by
energy costs. Compared with a year ago, prices were up 7.4 percent,
the worst producer price inflation in the United States since 1981.
Other new figures showed that home prices around the country are
falling at an accelerating pace, suggesting no end is in sight for the
housing slump.
As of Tuesday, regular gasoline was selling at a nationwide average of
$3.14 a gallon, according to AAA, the automobile club, up from $2.35 a
year ago. The price has jumped 19 cents a gallon in two weeks.
Energy specialists predict that, as demand picks up further this
spring and summer, retail prices will surpass the high of $3.23 a
gallon set last Memorial Day weekend. That high fell short of the
inflation-adjusted record of $3.40 in today’s money that was set in
1981.
On Tuesday, diesel prices rose to a record $3.60 a gallon, compared
with $2.62 a gallon last year.
For a decade, rising oil prices failed to dent global economic growth.
In the United States, consumers absorbed the higher costs because of
easy credit and rising prosperity, while in developing countries,
government subsidies helped ease the pain. The rise in energy prices
was a result of growing demand around the world.
The price of oil has quadrupled in six years, and the close Tuesday
was not far below the inflation-adjusted high set in April 1980, after
the Iranian revolution. That record, $39.50 a barrel, equals $103.76
in today’s money.
As oil prices spiked last fall, low wintertime gasoline demand helped
keep prices in check. But now, experts say, the price of oil is
finally showing up at the pump.
For ordinary Americans like Phyllis Berry, a 31-year-old factory
worker for General Motors in Cleveland, gasoline costs are starting to
hurt.
“I used to fill it up pretty regularly, but now I drive it until the
tank is almost empty, looking for the cheapest place to buy gas,” said
Ms. Berry, who drives a beat-up Dodge Caravan.
She said that she used to take her four children to the movies four or
five times a month. But with the cost of gas, tickets, popcorn and
soda adding up to $70, they now go only once a month.
Still, things are not quite as bad as during the 1970s and 1980s oil
shocks. In the early 1980s, at the height of the last energy crisis,
energy accounted for about 8 percent of household spending. As prices
fell and the economy became less energy-intensive, energy costs fell
under 4 percent of household spending in the early 1990s.
With the run-up in prices in recent years, economists say energy’s
share of disposable income is slowly creeping up again. In December,
that figure reached 6.1 percent, the highest level since 1985. The
increase of two percentage points — amounting to $200 billion — is a
huge sum, a little less than half what Americans spend each year on
new cars and automobile parts.
“You’re adding an oil shock on top of a crunch on credit and a housing
collapse,” said Nigel Gault, an economist at Global Insight. “Even the
U.S. economy cannot withstand all of that at the same time.”
American consumers have responded belatedly by cutting back on their
energy use. Oil demand in the United States grew by just 0.4 percent
in 2007 and is expected to be flat in 2008.
--
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government
talking
about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order.
Nothing has
changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists,
we're
talking about getting a court order before we do so"
-George W. Bush, April 20, 2004
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed, http://yahoogroups/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (please contribute!)
http:yahoogroups/subscribe/zepps_essays
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News...@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Rightwinghank
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/business/27cnd-gas.html?_r=1&hp&ore...
> huge sum, a little less than half what Americans spend each year on
> new cars and automobile parts.
>
> "You're adding an oil shock on top of a crunch on credit and a housing
> collapse," said Nigel Gault, an economist at Global Insight. "Even the
> U.S. economy cannot withstand all of that at the same time."
>
> American consumers have responded belatedly by cutting back on their
> energy use. Oil demand in the United States grew by just 0.4 percent
> in 2007 and is expected to be flat in 2008.
>
> --
> "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government
> talking
> about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order.
> Nothing has
> changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists,
> we're
> talking about getting a court order before we do so"
> -George W. Bush, April 20, 2004
>
> Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
> Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
>
> http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
> For essays (please contribute!)
> http:yahoogroups/subscribe/zepps_essays
>
> --
>
> What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
>
> An ex-Republican.
>
>
> "Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
>
> Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
>
> Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
> Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
> For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
> For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
> a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Screw the stupid Americans....
They didnt want drilling in Alaska.
They didnt want offshore drilling.
They didnt want new refineries.
They didnt want new nuke power plants.
They let Israel dictate middle east policy.
They let Israel declare war in the middle east for them.
They bough BIG SUVs....
Let them eat cake.
love
hank
milt....@gmail.com
>
> > "Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
>
> > Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
>
> > Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
> > Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
> > For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
> > For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
> > Zepps_News-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> > For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
> > Zepps_essays-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> > a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
>
> Screw the stupid Americans....
>
> They didnt want drilling in Alaska.
That wouldn't make a difference in price.
>
> They didnt want offshore drilling.
We're doing plenty of offshore drilling, and it wouldn't make a
difference in price, anyway.
>
> They didnt want new refineries.
No, that's not true at all. The oil companies don't want to build more
refineries, or expand capacity in refineries already on line, because
it artificially keeps the price up. They PURPOSELY try to propose new
refineries in places they know will reject them. I can't believe
you're gullible enough to think that, with all of the hurting cities
in this country -- all of the cities who've seen their manufacturing
base dry up -- they would ALL reject a new refinery, and the jobs they
provide.
>
> They didnt want new nuke power plants.
Nuclear power plants are too expensive, and there is still no solution
to the waste problem, anyway. And if we could replace all of the cars
with electric cars, and only use oil to produce electricity, we
wouldn't have much of a problem, anyway, even if we had to double
capacity on the grid.
>
> They let Israel dictate middle east policy.
ExxonMobil dictates Middle east policy, not Israel.
>
> They let Israel declare war in the middle east for them.
Ditto. Israel wasn't actually in favor of the Iraq invasion, and the
result of that occupation -- a Shiite theocracy aligned with Iran --
is probably not in Israel's favor, either.
>
> They bough BIG SUVs....
Okay, you got one right. Every time I hear one of these soccer moms
with two small kids complain about the price of gas, I laugh in her
face and remind her that she, her husband and their two kids could fit
in my little car, and it gets 30-35 mpg most of the time...
Steve
>Nuclear power plants are too expensive,
...and yet most of European and Japanese electric customers are
supplied with power generated at nuclear plants. and I don't see
those customers complaining about electric prices..
Fact is that the environmental fruit loops are responsible for killing
off the natural progression to nuclear power in the USA making them
very much a responsible party in the energy problems we are having
today.
"If the flier distributor files suit, it will be based on his First
Amendment right to free speech"
--Mlt Shook May 16 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/dd2be3479999ea40?hl=en&
Canyon note: Shook continues to claim the First Amendment can
be used to sue a private party.
Rightwinghank
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ok Milt the jew...you a shut in?
Dont know where to start.....
Lets pick nuke energy....
France has 85 percent nuke electric...
You say its impossible?
You say we cant do it but France can?
There is NO OTHER viable options...
uncless you want a friggin windmill on top of your car...
You are a stupid brainwashed typical stupid america...
who watches too much CNN.
EVERY friggin think is "impossible"
What a twisted mind you have.
No wonder no one sees eye to eye with you.
have a nice day
love ya
hank
Matt
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:11:01 -0800 (PST), milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Nuclear power plants are too expensive,
>
> ...and yet most of European and Japanese electric customers are
> supplied with power generated at nuclear plants. and I don't see
> those customers complaining about electric prices..
You don't listen too well, then.
LONDON: Electricity prices could reach record highs in Europe as
forecasters predict a second straight summer of soaring temperatures.
"The chances are we will see significant increases in prices," said
Kim Keats, head of the power and fuels group at ICF International, a
consulting firm in London.
The price of baseload electricity for next quarter in Germany, the
biggest European market, has risen 27 percent from its low this year
on Feb. 23 and traded Thursday at EURO 46.25, or $62.95, a megawatt-hour,
according to GFI Group. Increased demand for electricity to power air-
conditioners and refrigerators may send baseload, or around-the-clock,
contracts as high as EURO 60 per megawatt-hour, said Olaf Ter Bille,
senior energy trader at the MMT Energy Fund.
And..
International statistics for 1989 show that the average price for
residential electricity in France was 11.5 cents per kilowatt hour,
compared with 7.5 cents in the United States. The French energy recipe
would increase the monthly electric bill for the average United States
residential consumer by 50 percent. And the reason the Government-
owned Electricite de France has "one of the lowest greenhouse emission
rates" is simple: it produces more than 75 percent of its energy from
nuclear power.
Gee, Steve-o, guess you were wrong again?
>
> Fact is that the environmental fruit loops are responsible for killing
> off the natural progression to nuclear power in the USA making them
> very much a responsible party in the energy problems we are having
> today.
Fact is, you are wrong again. By the way, see how great those nuclear
power plants in Florida did yesterday? LOL.
Matt
Keating Five
"Matt" <mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:243039ff-15d3-4d04...@q33g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Nuke power is very expensive but unbelievably high in the US.
Steve
Undocumented bullshit.. here's some facts...
http://www.uic.com.au/nip28.htm
"The cost of nuclear-generated electricity fell by 7% from 1998 to
2001 and is now about EUR 3 cents/kWh"
>would increase the monthly electric bill for the average United States
>residential consumer by 50 percent. And the reason the Government-
>owned Electricite de France has "one of the lowest greenhouse emission
>rates" is simple: it produces more than 75 percent of its energy from
>nuclear power.
>
>Gee, Steve-o, guess you were wrong again?
Nope!
http://www.uic.com.au/nip28.htm
Nuclear Power in France
Briefing Paper 28
December 2007
* France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy.
This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
* France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to
its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year
from this.
* France has been very active in developing nuclear technology.
Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.
France has 59 nuclear reactors operated by Electricité de France (EdF)
with total capacity of over 63 GWe, supplying over 430 billion kWh per
year of electricity, 78% of the total generated there. In 2005 French
electricity generation was 549 billion kWh net and consumption 482
billion kWh - 7700 kWh per person. Over the last decade France has
exported 60-70 billion kWh net each year and EdF expects exports to
continue at 65-70 TWh/yr.
The present situation is due to the French government deciding in
1974, just after the first oil shock, to expand rapidly the country's
nuclear power capacity. This decision was taken in the context of
France having substantial heavy engineering expertise but few
indigenous energy resources. Nuclear energy, with the fuel cost being
a relatively small part of the overall cost, made good sense in
minimising imports and achieving greater energy security.
>> Fact is that the environmental fruit loops are responsible for killing
>> off the natural progression to nuclear power in the USA making them
>> very much a responsible party in the energy problems we are having
>> today.
>
>Fact is, you are wrong again. By the way, see how great those nuclear
>power plants in Florida did yesterday? LOL.
>
>Matt
the fact that they were nuclear had nothing to do with the outages,
the problems were all on the electrical you loon. Any and all power
plants would have tripped under those circomstances.
"a couple of users have made it clear that they've made
it their business to stalk him just as he's stalked us."
--David (Zepp) Jamieson Feb 21, 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/9ff12a04c549088e
Canyon note: .and this is supoosed to be part of their ignoring me?
Constitutional American
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why not go the other direction? Brazil has been running biofuel
(mandated) since the late 70's. It's produced from sugar beets (thus
no FOOD shortage as is being foretold) and their fuel costs is roughly
1/3 of ours.
And incidentally, the vehicles they use are made by Ford and GM, so
blow the retooling costs out of the water as well.
That sorta leaves it up the Oil companies greed, doesn't it?
Rightwinghank
>
> - Show quoted text -
Because because there is not enough LAND to make the oil we need in
America...
Its stupid uninformed people like you who
caused this problem in the first place.
Guess you think the solution is windmills doncha?
Nuke energy is the only CURRENT solution.....
not wind...not solar...not wave....not plants.....
get a grip and be real.
love
hank
Matt
COST, Steve-o. That's how much it costs to MAKE the power, not how
much it sells for. There's that little "initial startup cost" that
kills you.
Please pay attention, and admit you are wrong when you are.
Matt
Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )
3975 Dead wrote:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/business/27cnd-gas.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
>
> Gas Prices Soar, Posing a Threat to Family Budget
>
Until the price gets to the point that Americans actually respond by
using less fuel, either by driving less or by getting into vehicles that
get good mileage, the price will continue to go up.
--
-"We have a couple of ideas for Texas."
-"Good, we need ideas."
-"One, we provide everybody who shows up with a nice lunch platter, some
sliced meat, a bun, some lettuce, a piece of tomato, a big hunk of bunt
cake. We tell them, vote for Hillary, she's a real winner."
-"What's the other idea?"
-"We start a rumor that Obama had a gay affair while smoking crack."
-"We don't have the money for a deli run."
Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )
milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Feb 27, 9:53 am, Rightwinghank <rightwingh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Screw the stupid Americans....
> >
> > They didnt want drilling in Alaska.
>
> That wouldn't make a difference in price.
>
You can't say that. The amount of extra oil required to change the price
could be not a lot. And Alaska is by no means all played out. By
securing the oil in an environmentally sensible manner, America can
secure its energy future in a small way. Obviously more is needed,
including the most obvious ones, nuclear power plants.
> > They didnt want offshore drilling.
>
> We're doing plenty of offshore drilling, and it wouldn't make a
> difference in price, anyway.
>
So nothing we do to increase supply matters to the price? Offshore
drilling off Florida and California would increase supply. Do it in an
environmentally sensible manner.
>
> > They didnt want new refineries.
>
> No, that's not true at all. The oil companies don't want to build more
> refineries, or expand capacity in refineries already on line, because
> it artificially keeps the price up.
>
That's an assertion. Prove it. The fact is, refining has been a money
losing game for decades.
> They PURPOSELY try to propose new
> refineries in places they know will reject them. I can't believe
> you're gullible enough to think that, with all of the hurting cities
> in this country -- all of the cities who've seen their manufacturing
> base dry up -- they would ALL reject a new refinery, and the jobs they
> provide.
>
The refinery should be where the oil is.
> > They didnt want new nuke power plants.
>
> Nuclear power plants are too expensive,
>
Now that's nonsense. France gets 80% of its electrical power from
nuclear power plants. At the same time it supports a massively
inefficient economic system. How does it do that? How about with the
nuclear power.
> and there is still no solution
> to the waste problem, anyway.
>
Because there is no waste problem. Bury the material in a mountain in
Nevada. End of story.
> And if we could replace all of the cars
> with electric cars, and only use oil to produce electricity, we
> wouldn't have much of a problem, anyway, even if we had to double
> capacity on the grid.
>
EVs are a very sensible idea although they should not be powered by oil
in power plants.
> > They let Israel dictate middle east policy.
>
> ExxonMobil dictates Middle east policy, not Israel.
>
Really?
> > They let Israel declare war in the middle east for them.
>
> Ditto. Israel wasn't actually in favor of the Iraq invasion, and the
> result of that occupation -- a Shiite theocracy aligned with Iran --
> is probably not in Israel's favor, either.
>
So you are coming out against the anti-Semitic faction around here?
> > They bough BIG SUVs....
>
> Okay, you got one right. Every time I hear one of these soccer moms
> with two small kids complain about the price of gas, I laugh in her
> face and remind her that she, her husband and their two kids could fit
> in my little car, and it gets 30-35 mpg most of the time...
>
Or you could do better and ride your bike.
Matt
the frontal attack' )" <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 9:53 am, Rightwinghank <rightwingh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Screw the stupid Americans....
>
> > > They didnt want drilling in Alaska.
>
> > That wouldn't make a difference in price.
>
> You can't say that. The amount of extra oil required to change the price
> could be not a lot. And Alaska is by no means all played out. By
> securing the oil in an environmentally sensible manner, America can
> secure its energy future in a small way. Obviously more is needed,
> including the most obvious ones, nuclear power plants.
It wouldn't make any difference, since it isn't the drilling side of
the equation
that is the problem at the moment. It is the refining side, and that
has no
current solutions.
>
> > > They didnt want offshore drilling.
>
> > We're doing plenty of offshore drilling, and it wouldn't make a
> > difference in price, anyway.
>
> So nothing we do to increase supply matters to the price? Offshore
> drilling off Florida and California would increase supply. Do it in an
> environmentally sensible manner.
Yeah right. Exxon and "environmentally sensible" are two terms that
should
never be used together. If it were possible, fine, but I don't see it
ever happening.
>
> >> > They didnt want new refineries.
>
> > No, that's not true at all. The oil companies don't want to build more
> > refineries, or expand capacity in refineries already on line, because
> > it artificially keeps the price up.
>
> That's an assertion. Prove it. The fact is, refining has been a money
> losing game for decades.
Now that's just silly. Unrefined petroleum is a worthless product. How
can
it be a "losing game"?
>
> > They PURPOSELY try to propose new
> > refineries in places they know will reject them. I can't believe
> > you're gullible enough to think that, with all of the hurting cities
> > in this country -- all of the cities who've seen their manufacturing
> > base dry up -- they would ALL reject a new refinery, and the jobs they
> > provide.
>
> The refinery should be where the oil is.
No, it shouldn't. It should be where the best location for it would
be. Most
oil is located in places far from transportation (for good reasons,
would you
want to live in an oil field?), so you refine it near to a major
transportation
hub.
>
> > > They didnt want new nuke power plants.
>
> > Nuclear power plants are too expensive,
>
> Now that's nonsense. France gets 80% of its electrical power from
> nuclear power plants. At the same time it supports a massively
> inefficient economic system. How does it do that? How about with the
> nuclear power.
France also charges more than we do for that power. Why? Because of
the massive upfront cost of nuclear energy. A nuclear power plant
costs
many MANY times what a coal or gas plant does. That doesn't mean it
isn't a feasible solution, but it does mean it is expensive in both
the near
and mid-term.
To do nuclear right, we have to have a single cookie-cutter plant
plan, along
with a well-defined infrastructure for building and securing the
plants. We also
need a plan for disposal of waste (including tools, equipment,
clothing, etc) and
a good plan for protecting them from attack.
All of this CAN be done, but with our current governmental haphazard
approach
to everything, it isn't going to be.
>
> > and there is still no solution
> > to the waste problem, anyway.
>
> Because there is no waste problem. Bury the material in a mountain in
> Nevada. End of story.
Sorry, Bill, that doesn't work. I grew up on the East Coast. Ask any
of the
people in NY about the concept of landfills. They were going to last
forever...
>
> > And if we could replace all of the cars
> > with electric cars, and only use oil to produce electricity, we
> > wouldn't have much of a problem, anyway, even if we had to double
> > capacity on the grid.
>
> EVs are a very sensible idea although they should not be powered by oil
> in power plants.
Agreed.
>
> > > They let Israel dictate middle east policy.
>
> > ExxonMobil dictates Middle east policy, not Israel.
>
> Really?
In most cases, he's probably closer than you might think.
> > > They bough BIG SUVs....
>
> > Okay, you got one right. Every time I hear one of these soccer moms
> > with two small kids complain about the price of gas, I laugh in her
> > face and remind her that she, her husband and their two kids could fit
> > in my little car, and it gets 30-35 mpg most of the time...
Sigh. So true.
>
> Or you could do better and ride your bike.
Or walk, or take mass transit.
Matt
Keating Five
"Rightwinghank" <rightw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5ac3fee7-209e-4abe...@c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Guess you think the solution is windmills doncha?
Nuke energy is the only CURRENT solution.....
not wind...not solar...not wave....not plants.....
get a grip and be real.
love
hank
-------------
I think the solution is to collect all Bush supporters and make them pedal
generators.
Keating Five
"Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )"
<tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:47C5B69B...@yahoo.co.uk...
>
>
> 3975 Dead wrote:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/business/27cnd-gas.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
>>
>> Gas Prices Soar, Posing a Threat to Family Budget
>>
> Until the price gets to the point that Americans actually respond by
> using less fuel, either by driving less or by getting into vehicles that
> get good mileage, the price will continue to go up.
Quit Iraq and everything will smooth out.
Falstaff
>
> > On Feb 27, 9:53 am, Rightwinghank <rightwingh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Screw the stupid Americans....
>
>
> Now that's nonsense. France gets 80% of its electrical power from
> nuclear power plants. At the same time it supports a massively
> inefficient economic system. How does it do that? How about with the
> nuclear power.
>
> > and there is still no solution
> > to the waste problem, anyway.
>
> Because there is no waste problem. Bury the material in a mountain in
> Nevada. End of story.
>
Maybe the train carrying nuke waste from your local nuke plant
to Nevada will derail in your backyard. No problem. You want the
power, you can have the waste.
milt....@gmail.com
Oh, like that'll happen.
There's not only the initial start-up cost to consider, but there's
the waste disposal issue to consider, as well as the significant
amount of time it takes to build one of these things. There is one
being proposed right now in Idaho; it's a relatively small one, but
its initial estimated cost will be $4.5 billion, plus another $150
million just to go through the application processes. Not only that,
but the plant wouldn't start going online for 10-12 years. In one-
tenth that time and about 3-4% of that cost, they could built a 3300-
acre wind farm on the same spot, and probably have it ready in a year
or two.
BTW, that's 10-12 years IF the process goes smoothly.
Now, call me crazy, but if private companies are putting $4.5 billion
into building a plant that won't even start bringing in revenue for
10-12 years in the first place, there's simply no way that electricity
will be provided on the cheap, whether on the short term or the long
term. And i can't say as i blame them...
milt....@gmail.com
No. And I'm also not jewish.
>
> Dont know where to start.....
You don't know where your right arm is.
>
> Lets pick nuke energy....
>
> France has 85 percent nuke electric...
>
> You say its impossible?
Impossible? No. Stupid and too expensive? Yes, absolutely.
>
> You say we cant do it but France can?
France is much smaller and did it using public funds. We're not built
that way. You like high taxes?
>
> There is NO OTHER viable options...
That's just crazy. But then, consider the source.
Right now, with current technology, it's estimated that it would take
about 3-4 million wind turbines arrayed around the Midwest to replace
all of the oil and coal burning plants in the United States. And at
roughly 10% of the cost of nuclear power.
>
> uncless you want a friggin windmill on top of your car...
No, but a battery and/or a solar panel might be nice. A windmill might
cause problems with the guy behind me.
>
> You are a stupid brainwashed typical stupid america...
>
> who watches too much CNN.
I don't watch very much Tv at all, actually.
>
> EVERY friggin think is "impossible"
>
> What a twisted mind you have.
>
> No wonder no one sees eye to eye with you.
No one? Cool...
Steve
Well there you go... economic advice from another far left loon that
can't even support himself...
milt....@gmail.com
>
> > On Feb 27, 9:53 am, Rightwinghank <rightwingh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Screw the stupid Americans....
>
> > > They didnt want drilling in Alaska.
>
> > That wouldn't make a difference in price.
>
> You can't say that. The amount of extra oil required to change the price
> could be not a lot. And Alaska is by no means all played out. By
> securing the oil in an environmentally sensible manner, America can
> secure its energy future in a small way. Obviously more is needed,
> including the most obvious ones, nuclear power plants.
I can say that, and prove it, besides.
Please point to the ACTUAL SHORTAGE of oil that is causing the current
price spike to somewhere north of $100/bbl.
There isn't one. Therefore, the price isn't being set based on supply
and demand. it's based on speculators, most of whom work for - wait
for it -- oil-producing countries and oil companies. Gee... why would
they want the price to go up?
God, that was easy.
>
> > > They didnt want offshore drilling.
>
> > We're doing plenty of offshore drilling, and it wouldn't make a
> > difference in price, anyway.
>
> So nothing we do to increase supply matters to the price? Offshore
> drilling off Florida and California would increase supply. Do it in an
> environmentally sensible manner.
See above, lamebrain. If you believe that supply and demand are what
drives oil prices since 1973, then you haven't been paying attention.
>
> >> > They didnt want new refineries.
>
> > No, that's not true at all. The oil companies don't want to build more
> > refineries, or expand capacity in refineries already on line, because
> > it artificially keeps the price up.
>
> That's an assertion. Prove it. The fact is, refining has been a money
> losing game for decades.
No, Bill, it hasn't. The oil companies own the refineries, and the oil
companies are making lots of money. You act like refineries are owned
by small little middle men, who are being squeezed somehow. Puh-leez.
ExxonMobil makes a large portion of the $100/bbl, they make all of the
money they charge to transport the oil to the refinery, and they own
the refinery. the only thing they don't own are the gas stations
themselves. So, can you guess the only part of the chain that's being
squeezed these days? Come on... guess for me... see if you're right...
>
> > They PURPOSELY try to propose new
> > refineries in places they know will reject them. I can't believe
> > you're gullible enough to think that, with all of the hurting cities
> > in this country -- all of the cities who've seen their manufacturing
> > base dry up -- they would ALL reject a new refinery, and the jobs they
> > provide.
>
> The refinery should be where the oil is.
That's not practical, and if you knew anything about the process you
would know that. When you refine a barrel of oil, you get several
different products, which means separate transportation for each. So
you transfer the crude to the country or area in which you're going to
sell it, and THEN you refine it.
>
> > > They didnt want new nuke power plants.
>
> > Nuclear power plants are too expensive,
>
> Now that's nonsense. France gets 80% of its electrical power from
> nuclear power plants. At the same time it supports a massively
> inefficient economic system. How does it do that? How about with the
> nuclear power.
France paid for its nukes using tax money. The United States doesn't
work that way, for one thing. For another, they built them years ago.
a 1600 megawatt plant is being proposed in Idaho right now. The
initial cost estimate is $4.5 billion (it'll end up more than double
that), and it won't be on line for 10-12 years.
If the thing only ends up costing $6 billion, capitalized for 10-12
years before the first dollar in revenue is received, that translates
to $10-12 billion. And that's before one kwh is pumped out of the
thing. That could buy a shitload of wind turbines and solar panels...
>
> > and there is still no solution
> > to the waste problem, anyway.
>
> Because there is no waste problem. Bury the material in a mountain in
> Nevada. End of story.
Not the end of the problem. The people of Nevada don't want it there.
Why should they have to sit on everyone else's waste?
Why don't we just bury it in your back yard, Bill?
>
> > And if we could replace all of the cars
> > with electric cars, and only use oil to produce electricity, we
> > wouldn't have much of a problem, anyway, even if we had to double
> > capacity on the grid.
>
> EVs are a very sensible idea although they should not be powered by oil
> in power plants.
it would still use less oil, which was the point.
>
> > > They let Israel dictate middle east policy.
>
> > ExxonMobil dictates Middle east policy, not Israel.
>
> Really?
Oh, yeah. ExxonMobil, Texaco, BP...
>
> > > They let Israel declare war in the middle east for them.
>
> > Ditto. Israel wasn't actually in favor of the Iraq invasion, and the
> > result of that occupation -- a Shiite theocracy aligned with Iran --
> > is probably not in Israel's favor, either.
>
> So you are coming out against the anti-Semitic faction around here?
I don't have a problem with Israel. They are not the source of all of
the problems in the Middle East. Western Colonialism is.
>
> > > They bough BIG SUVs....
>
> > Okay, you got one right. Every time I hear one of these soccer moms
> > with two small kids complain about the price of gas, I laugh in her
> > face and remind her that she, her husband and their two kids could fit
> > in my little car, and it gets 30-35 mpg most of the time...
>
> Or you could do better and ride your bike.
I do that when it's practical. But it's not practical going back and
forth to work for me. I take the train for that.
Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )
Matt wrote:
>
> On Feb 27, 12:20 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of
> the frontal attack' )" <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 27, 9:53 am, Rightwinghank <rightwingh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Screw the stupid Americans....
> >
> > > > They didnt want drilling in Alaska.
> >
> > > That wouldn't make a difference in price.
> >
> > You can't say that. The amount of extra oil required to change the price
> > could be not a lot. And Alaska is by no means all played out. By
> > securing the oil in an environmentally sensible manner, America can
> > secure its energy future in a small way. Obviously more is needed,
> > including the most obvious ones, nuclear power plants.
>
> It wouldn't make any difference, since it isn't the drilling side of
> the equation
> that is the problem at the moment. It is the refining side, and that
> has no
> current solutions.
>
So having it would make a difference. You seem to want it both ways.
> > > > They didnt want offshore drilling.
> >
> > > We're doing plenty of offshore drilling, and it wouldn't make a
> > > difference in price, anyway.
> >
> > So nothing we do to increase supply matters to the price? Offshore
> > drilling off Florida and California would increase supply. Do it in an
> > environmentally sensible manner.
>
> Yeah right. Exxon and "environmentally sensible" are two terms that
> should
> never be used together. If it were possible, fine, but I don't see it
> ever happening.
>
I'm not a big fan of Exxon since they allowed a drunk to spill all that
oil. But Exxon isn't the only oil company and it's been a pretty long
time.
> >
> > >> > They didnt want new refineries.
> >
> > > No, that's not true at all. The oil companies don't want to build more
> > > refineries, or expand capacity in refineries already on line, because
> > > it artificially keeps the price up.
> >
> > That's an assertion. Prove it. The fact is, refining has been a money
> > losing game for decades.
>
> Now that's just silly. Unrefined petroleum is a worthless product. How
> can
> it be a "losing game"?
>
It's a losing game because there's been no profit in refining.
> >
> > > They PURPOSELY try to propose new
> > > refineries in places they know will reject them. I can't believe
> > > you're gullible enough to think that, with all of the hurting cities
> > > in this country -- all of the cities who've seen their manufacturing
> > > base dry up -- they would ALL reject a new refinery, and the jobs they
> > > provide.
> >
> > The refinery should be where the oil is.
>
> No, it shouldn't. It should be where the best location for it would
> be. Most
> oil is located in places far from transportation (for good reasons,
> would you
> want to live in an oil field?), so you refine it near to a major
> transportation
> hub.
>
But this means that you have to move the oil from the supertankers a
great distance. It has been cheaper to refine near the point of the
offloading of the oil.
> >
> > > > They didnt want new nuke power plants.
> >
> > > Nuclear power plants are too expensive,
> >
> > Now that's nonsense. France gets 80% of its electrical power from
> > nuclear power plants. At the same time it supports a massively
> > inefficient economic system. How does it do that? How about with the
> > nuclear power.
>
> France also charges more than we do for that power. Why? Because of
> the massive upfront cost of nuclear energy. A nuclear power plant
> costs
> many MANY times what a coal or gas plant does.
>
But it costs almost nothing to run. This is why it is how long a nuke
plant lasts that defines the cost of the power it produces.
> That doesn't mean it
> isn't a feasible solution, but it does mean it is expensive in both
> the near
> and mid-term.
>
It's not really that expensive.
> To do nuclear right, we have to have a single cookie-cutter plant
> plan, along
> with a well-defined infrastructure for building and securing the
> plants.
>
I've proposed underground nuclear farms. They would have many similar
reactors using a shared containment system. This would mitigate the
terrorist attack threat including from flying airplanes into the
currently exposed containment buildings. But underground and shared also
means that you reduce cost by eliminating the containment buildings
themselves.
Furthermore, by using the waste heat, you eliminate the cooling tower
cost. By placing the farms close to a large body of water, you can still
have redundancy in case you need to dump heat. By making the reactor
piles require a constant source of external neutrons, they shut off
automatically if you stop that input. By delivering this power using a
new supergrid of grids connected with high voltage DC, you add
robustness.
> We also
> need a plan for disposal of waste (including tools, equipment,
> clothing, etc) and
> a good plan for protecting them from attack.
>
There's a mountain in Nevada you can bury the high level waste in. Low
level waste is probably going to be buried onsite. This is fine given
that the plants themselves will have radioactive materials in them of
similar half life.
> All of this CAN be done, but with our current governmental haphazard
> approach
> to everything, it isn't going to be.
>
There is a great weight of hate for nuclear power from Liberals that
needs to be overcome.
> >
> > > and there is still no solution
> > > to the waste problem, anyway.
> >
> > Because there is no waste problem. Bury the material in a mountain in
> > Nevada. End of story.
>
> Sorry, Bill, that doesn't work. I grew up on the East Coast. Ask any
> of the
> people in NY about the concept of landfills. They were going to last
> forever...
>
There isn't that much high level waste. Your landfills are a far greater
problem but no one seems worried about them. I worry about them.
> >
> > > And if we could replace all of the cars
> > > with electric cars, and only use oil to produce electricity, we
> > > wouldn't have much of a problem, anyway, even if we had to double
> > > capacity on the grid.
> >
> > EVs are a very sensible idea although they should not be powered by oil
> > in power plants.
>
> Agreed.
>
Which is why nuclear power is vital.
> >
> > > > They let Israel dictate middle east policy.
> >
> > > ExxonMobil dictates Middle east policy, not Israel.
> >
> > Really?
>
> In most cases, he's probably closer than you might think.
>
I don't think so. I think that US policy is currently motivated
primarily by the realization that dealing with the hopelessness of the
Middle East is required before the terrorist threat can be eliminated or
even reduced to an acceptable level.
> > > > They bough BIG SUVs....
> >
> > > Okay, you got one right. Every time I hear one of these soccer moms
> > > with two small kids complain about the price of gas, I laugh in her
> > > face and remind her that she, her husband and their two kids could fit
> > > in my little car, and it gets 30-35 mpg most of the time...
>
> Sigh. So true.
>
> >
> > Or you could do better and ride your bike.
>
> Or walk, or take mass transit.
>
And/or get those EV "stub cars" I've been talking about into production.
There needs to be an industry standard that considers things such as EV
commuter trains, automatic lash points, automatic power charging hook
ups, etc. Because these cars would change the very way cars are
interacted with by Americans, they need certainly standardized features.
One of those is the size of the vehicle. It may also be possible to
allow automatic parking which could mean you could get out of the car
before parking it meaning that the distance between the car and the car
next to it could be reduced compared to current parking arrangements.
Another idea would be to allow the four wheels to turn 90 degrees so you
can park sideways in a space nearly as small as the car itself.
Matt
frontal attack' )" <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Matt wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 12:20 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of
> > the frontal attack' )" <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 27, 9:53 am, Rightwinghank <rightwingh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Screw the stupid Americans....
>
> > > > > They didnt want drilling in Alaska.
>
> > > > That wouldn't make a difference in price.
>
> > > You can't say that. The amount of extra oil required to change the price
> > > could be not a lot. And Alaska is by no means all played out. By
> > > securing the oil in an environmentally sensible manner, America can
> > > secure its energy future in a small way. Obviously more is needed,
> > > including the most obvious ones, nuclear power plants.
>
> > It wouldn't make any difference, since it isn't the drilling side of
> > the equation
> > that is the problem at the moment. It is the refining side, and that
> > has no
> > current solutions.
>
> So having it would make a difference. You seem to want it both ways.
I don't want it either way. My point is, you can have all oil in the
world, but
without a way to make it into something useful, it is just that much
dead
weight.
>
> > > > > They didnt want offshore drilling.
>
> > > > We're doing plenty of offshore drilling, and it wouldn't make a
> > > > difference in price, anyway.
>
> > > So nothing we do to increase supply matters to the price? Offshore
> > > drilling off Florida and California would increase supply. Do it in an
> > > environmentally sensible manner.
>
> > Yeah right. Exxon and "environmentally sensible" are two terms that
> > should
> > never be used together. If it were possible, fine, but I don't see it
> > ever happening.
>
> I'm not a big fan of Exxon since they allowed a drunk to spill all that
> oil. But Exxon isn't the only oil company and it's been a pretty long
> time.
This used to be my field, once upon a time. As a geologist, I dealt
with most
of the majors. None of them are environmentally friendly, and will
fight to the death
any attempt to make them so. From their perspective, I do understand
it, they just
want to get the stuff out and move on. But that doesn't mean I want to
live near their
work.
>
>
>
> > > >> > They didnt want new refineries.
>
> > > > No, that's not true at all. The oil companies don't want to build more
> > > > refineries, or expand capacity in refineries already on line, because
> > > > it artificially keeps the price up.
>
> > > That's an assertion. Prove it. The fact is, refining has been a money
> > > losing game for decades.
>
> > Now that's just silly. Unrefined petroleum is a worthless product. How
> > can
> > it be a "losing game"?
>
> It's a losing game because there's been no profit in refining.
And yet, if the oil isn't refined, it is worthless. Do you see a
problem here?
> > > > They PURPOSELY try to propose new
> > > > refineries in places they know will reject them. I can't believe
> > > > you're gullible enough to think that, with all of the hurting cities
> > > > in this country -- all of the cities who've seen their manufacturing
> > > > base dry up -- they would ALL reject a new refinery, and the jobs they
> > > > provide.
>
> > > The refinery should be where the oil is.
>
> > No, it shouldn't. It should be where the best location for it would
> > be. Most
> > oil is located in places far from transportation (for good reasons,
> > would you
> > want to live in an oil field?), so you refine it near to a major
> > transportation
> > hub.
>
> But this means that you have to move the oil from the supertankers a
> great distance. It has been cheaper to refine near the point of the
> offloading of the oil.
It can be cheaper, depending on the soruce of the oil. It is most
certainly
not cheaper in Alaska, or any of the North Sea. It probably is not
cheaper in
the gulf. In those cases, the environmental costs (not in harming it,
but in
surviving storms and weather) make it not worth the cost. So, where
does that
leave you refining stuff?
> > > > Nuclear power plants are too expensive,
>
> > > Now that's nonsense. France gets 80% of its electrical power from
> > > nuclear power plants. At the same time it supports a massively
> > > inefficient economic system. How does it do that? How about with the
> > > nuclear power.
>
> > France also charges more than we do for that power. Why? Because of
> > the massive upfront cost of nuclear energy. A nuclear power plant
> > costs
> > many MANY times what a coal or gas plant does.
>
> But it costs almost nothing to run. This is why it is how long a nuke
> plant lasts that defines the cost of the power it produces.
Eh, its not as cheap as all that. Certainly a lot cheaper than a coal
or gas
plant, but hardly free either. And don't forget the training costs.
Working in a
nuclear plant (for all of the Homer Simpsons out there) isn't as
simple as working
in a coal/gas plant.
> > To do nuclear right, we have to have a single cookie-cutter plant
> > plan, along
> > with a well-defined infrastructure for building and securing the
> > plants.
>
> I've proposed underground nuclear farms. They would have many similar
> reactors using a shared containment system. This would mitigate the
> terrorist attack threat including from flying airplanes into the
> currently exposed containment buildings. But underground and shared also
> means that you reduce cost by eliminating the containment buildings
> themselves.
Interesting idea. You can't build them everywhere, of course, and
certainly not
on the coasts, but not a bad idea at all. I hadn't seen that one
before, it does tend
to alleviate some of the concerns. You'd have more of a heat problem,
though, it
would be harder to vent. Certainly solvable.
>
> Furthermore, by using the waste heat, you eliminate the cooling tower
> cost. By placing the farms close to a large body of water, you can still
> have redundancy in case you need to dump heat. By making the reactor
> piles require a constant source of external neutrons, they shut off
> automatically if you stop that input. By delivering this power using a
> new supergrid of grids connected with high voltage DC, you add
> robustness.
Hm. That makes a fair amount of sense. One of the better ideas I've
seen in a
while.
>
> > We also
> > need a plan for disposal of waste (including tools, equipment,
> > clothing, etc) and
> > a good plan for protecting them from attack.
>
> There's a mountain in Nevada you can bury the high level waste in. Low
> level waste is probably going to be buried onsite. This is fine given
> that the plants themselves will have radioactive materials in them of
> similar half life.
The problem with storing too much of the stuff together is that you
get reactions.
Not, as in, "boom", but rather as in flash fires.
>
> > All of this CAN be done, but with our current governmental haphazard
> > approach
> > to everything, it isn't going to be.
>
> There is a great weight of hate for nuclear power from Liberals that
> needs to be overcome.
I don't hate nuclear power at all. I respect it, and think that it has
its own set
of problems, but it is a quantum leap up from oil and gas. I just
don't want us
to stop there and say "this is it forever". That's how we got into the
current
mess.
By the way, that doesn't really address the other problem, with is
heating homes
(heating oil) or cars. You could do something with the homes via
electric heat,
but cars and such are still an issue. Perhaps broadcast power?
Matt
Steve
Actually, it's the capital costs that have been a problem.. It takes
a big chunk of money to build a base load power plant, but at least
nowdays the Nuclear power capital costs have gotten cheaper while the
fossil fuel base load plants capital costs have gotten more
expensive... to the point where if you consider the cheaper fuel
costs, the nukes are competitive and sometimes the better option..
That's why you see so many nuclear plants being proposed
>> Please pay attention, and admit you are wrong when you are.
>>
>> Matt
>
>Oh, like that'll happen.
>
>There's not only the initial start-up cost to consider, but there's
>the waste disposal issue to consider, as well as the significant
>amount of time it takes to build one of these things. There is one
>being proposed right now in Idaho; it's a relatively small one, but
>its initial estimated cost will be $4.5 billion, plus another $150
>million just to go through the application processes. Not only that,
>but the plant wouldn't start going online for 10-12 years. In one-
>tenth that time and about 3-4% of that cost, they could built a 3300-
>acre wind farm on the same spot, and probably have it ready in a year
>or two.
>
>BTW, that's 10-12 years IF the process goes smoothly.
>
>Now, call me crazy,
You're very crazy...
> but if private companies are putting $4.5 billion
>into building a plant that won't even start bringing in revenue for
>10-12 years in the first place, there's simply no way that electricity
>will be provided on the cheap, whether on the short term or the long
>term. And i can't say as i blame them...
Sorry, but you WILL be seeing new Nukes here before too long..
They have reached the point where they are now competitive with fossil
plants..
Technology Review - Published by MIT
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Nuclear Energy Revs Up
NRG Energy kicks off an expected rush of nuclear-reactor applications.
By Peter Fairley
Nuclear power hit an important milestone late last month as NRG
Energy, based in Princeton, NJ, filed a licensing application to build
a new nuclear reactor. It is the first such filing in the United
States since 1978. There is good reason to anticipate more: the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in Washington, DC, expects to
receive four more applications this year to build and operate nuclear
reactors, and another fifteen in 2008.
Nuclear-industry advocates say that NRG Energy's application and those
in the pipeline show that a nuclear renaissance is under way. Many
observers credit the Energy Policy Act of 2005. NRG Energy says that
the law's loan guarantees and tax incentives could cover up to 80
percent of the cost of its $5.4 to $6.8 billion project. "The purpose
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was to help jump-start the
revitalization of nuclear infrastructure, and that's what it's doing,"
says NRG Energy spokesman Dave Knox.
NRG Energy's application seeks permission to build two new reactors
beside two existing reactors at the South Texas Project nuclear-power
station, in Bay City, TX, adding 2,700 megawatts of capacity capable
of powering about two million homes. NRG hopes to begin construction
in 2010 and to be operating the reactors by 2015, assuming there are
no significant regulatory or construction delays.
Concern over such delays means planners are favoring updated versions
of tried-and-true reactor designs. NRG Energy and its partners say
that concerns over the risk of licensing and construction delays drove
their selection of a reactor design that NRC certified a decade ago:
GE's advanced boiling-water reactor. Four of these types of plants are
operating in Japan, and two more are under construction in Taiwan.
"What was most important to us was having a very complete application
that answers all the questions," says NRG Energy's Knox. "I just can't
overemphasize the value of that proven design."
A majority of the 16 other utilities known to be preparing licensing
applications for nuclear plants have opted for a similarly
conservative approach. Six utilities plan to use a pressurized water
reactor from Westinghouse, which NRC certified in 2006. Another six
plan to use French nuclear-technology giant Areva's EPR, which is not
yet certified by NRC but is under construction in France and Finland.
A joint venture of Electricité de France and U.S. utility
Constellation Energy plans to build the first EPR in the United
States.
The utilities' risk-averse reasoning is well founded, says Ray
Ganthner, senior VP for new plant deployment at Areva Nuclear Power,
based in Lynchburg, VA, a subsidiary of Areva. He points to the
experience of GE, which is experiencing delays with design
certification for its economic simplified boiling water reactor, which
uses passive water circulation to protect the reactor core. Such
passive safety designs may be safer than current designs that rely on
pumped cooling water, but they are as yet unproven. GE's design
application has bogged down since the company filed in 2005, as NRC
sought more engineering detail, asking for nearly 3,000 additional
pieces of information. Design approval, once projected for 2007, is
now slated for 2010.
Even conventional projects could face delays if NRC is overwhelmed by
the anticipated flurry of applications.
A study released in August by the Government Accountability Office
(GAO), Congress's research arm, lauded NRC's aggressive hiring to
staff its new Office of New Reactors, raising NRC's overall workforce
from 3,100 in 2004 to 3,500 today (the agency expects to hit 4,000 by
2010). But GAO also advised NRC to plan for trouble, setting criteria
by which it will triage applications if it becomes overstretched.
If NRC becomes overwhelmed, the first projects in the pipeline are
likely to win out. That could mean delays for Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries, which notified NRC in August that it intends to seek
certification for its latest pressurized water-reactor design.
Mitsubishi hopes to file its application in early 2008, but Ganthner
says that NRC needs more notice to plan for major projects such as
reactor-design reviews. "They came into the NRC's picture for the
budgeting process about a year late in the cycle," he says.
Watchdog groups, for their part, worry that safety quality will get
lost in the shuffle if NRC shifts focus and resources away from
enforcement. "NRC is approaching new reactor licensing with a
near-exclusive focus on schedule, not quality," says David Lochbaum,
director of nuclear safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists, in
Washington. He believes that NRC is already stretched too thin. "The
NRC lacks sufficient resources to undertake too many tasks," Lochbaum
says. "They can cover any half they want but can never cover it all."
Copyright Technology Review 2007.
Steve
Total bullshit! Wind generators are costing somewhere in the vicinity
of $1000 to $1500 per kwh capacity. Nuclear plant construction costs
are estimated to be between $200 to $3000.. indeed the windmills are
cheaper, not anywhere 10%, but still cheaper... but wait....
when you figure in the capacity factor the Nukes win hands down...
see below:
The windmills will, over the longrun, produce between 20% and perhaps
40% of it's maximum possible output for the same period while the nuke
will have a capacity factor of over 80%
...so what's going to run your computer when the wind isn't blowing?
Guess what, you'll need an substantial amount of RELIABLE capacity to
cover that situation.. unless you're willing to go in the dark
>> uncless you want a friggin windmill on top of your car...
>
>No, but a battery and/or a solar panel might be nice. A windmill might
>cause problems with the guy behind me.
>>
>> You are a stupid brainwashed typical stupid america...
>>
>> who watches too much CNN.
>
>I don't watch very much Tv at all, actually.
Milt spends all his spare time on the internet surfing for long rage
girlfriends.... ones that he knows he doesn't have to meet face to
face... social phobia, you know....
Matt
It is still considerably cheaper to build a coal or gas plant than a
nuclear
one. This could change, with economies of scale, but it certainly
isn't going
to in the short term. So, the initial cost is massive. That, in
itself, is not a
reason to avoid nuclear energy.
> > but if private companies are putting $4.5 billion
> >into building a plant that won't even start bringing in revenue for
> >10-12 years in the first place, there's simply no way that electricity
> >will be provided on the cheap, whether on the short term or the long
> >term. And i can't say as i blame them...
>
> Sorry, but you WILL be seeing new Nukes here before too long..
Where? This is a NIMBY problem of a large scale.
>
> They have reached the point where they are now competitive with fossil
> plants..
I don't know if "competitive" is the right answer, and yesterday's
little disaster
in Florida didn't help much. Coal and gas plants rarely go off-line,
after all.
Matt
Steve
Well, Dummy, you have to then factor in the cheaper fuel prices...
that makes them competitive...
Do you really believe that the power company's would be looking to
build them if they could do other things cheaper?
>> > but if private companies are putting $4.5 billion
>> >into building a plant that won't even start bringing in revenue for
>> >10-12 years in the first place, there's simply no way that electricity
>> >will be provided on the cheap, whether on the short term or the long
>> >term. And i can't say as i blame them...
>>
>> Sorry, but you WILL be seeing new Nukes here before too long..
>
>Where? This is a NIMBY problem of a large scale.
No at all.. I'd sooner have a nuke near me than be downwind to a big
coal plant.. no emissions you know...
>> They have reached the point where they are now competitive with fossil
>> plants..
>
>I don't know if "competitive" is the right answer, and yesterday's
>little disaster
>in Florida didn't help much. Coal and gas plants rarely go off-line,
>after all.
<ROFL> bullshit... the problems were all on the electrical side..
that would have tripped off any generator.. the tripping action
occurs on the electrical equipment.. it doesn't even know that the
plant is nuclear....
and trust me when I say that coal and gas plants trip off all the
time... It just doesn't make the news as much....
>Matt
Matt
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:47:29 -0800 (PST), Matt
>
>
>
>
>
It always amazes me how simplistic the world is to you.
>
> Do you really believe that the power company's would be looking to
> build them if they could do other things cheaper?
Yes, I'm sure they would. Were it not for little things like Three
Mile Island,
Trojan Nuclear Power Plant, Fort St Vrain, the Savannah River Plant...
Did you really not know any of this?
> >> Sorry, but you WILL be seeing new Nukes here before too long..
>
> >Where? This is a NIMBY problem of a large scale.
>
> No at all.. I'd sooner have a nuke near me than be downwind to a big
> coal plant.. no emissions you know...
Perhaps you would. However, most people would not. In this particular
case,
I agree with you, they are generally safer. But that doesn't change
people's
minds after Chernobyl and TMI.
>
> >> They have reached the point where they are now competitive with fossil
> >> plants..
>
> >I don't know if "competitive" is the right answer, and yesterday's
> >little disaster
> >in Florida didn't help much. Coal and gas plants rarely go off-line,
> >after all.
>
> <ROFL> bullshit... the problems were all on the electrical side..
> that would have tripped off any generator.. the tripping action
> occurs on the electrical equipment.. it doesn't even know that the
> plant is nuclear....
And yet, only the nuclear plants turned off. Why is that?
>
> and trust me when I say that coal and gas plants trip off all the
> time... It just doesn't make the news as much....
Really. Why don't you cite a few. Just for fun.
Matt
Rightwinghank
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are right so right Matt...
what happened is that part of the missle that hit the twin towers
on 9/11 by BUSH broke off and flew around the world a million times
and
then fell to earth knocking out the nuke power plant in florida...
but...
It was aimed to hit the nuke plant by the CIA on orders from BUSH.
Bush...the devil...
love
hank
You so smart Matt.
Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )
You know what I don't want? I don't want the Hg in the mountain lake
fish I wish to eat. I don't want the environment despoiled with the
leavings of coal mining and other activities that are required more if
we don't add significant nuclear energy to the mix.
George Grapman
Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )
milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Feb 27, 2:20 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the
> frontal attack' )" <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 27, 9:53 am, Rightwinghank <rightwingh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Screw the stupid Americans....
> >
> > > > They didnt want drilling in Alaska.
> >
> > > That wouldn't make a difference in price.
> >
> > You can't say that. The amount of extra oil required to change the price
> > could be not a lot. And Alaska is by no means all played out. By
> > securing the oil in an environmentally sensible manner, America can
> > secure its energy future in a small way. Obviously more is needed,
> > including the most obvious ones, nuclear power plants.
>
> I can say that, and prove it, besides.
>
> Please point to the ACTUAL SHORTAGE of oil that is causing the current
> price spike to somewhere north of $100/bbl.
>
What does "shortage" mean?
> There isn't one. Therefore, the price isn't being set based on supply
> and demand. it's based on speculators, most of whom work for - wait
> for it -- oil-producing countries and oil companies. Gee... why would
> they want the price to go up?
>
> God, that was easy.
>
So the very way in which markets work is proof to you that there isn't a
market at work? Maybe it was too easy.
>
> > > > They didnt want offshore drilling.
> >
> > > We're doing plenty of offshore drilling, and it wouldn't make a
> > > difference in price, anyway.
> >
> > So nothing we do to increase supply matters to the price? Offshore
> > drilling off Florida and California would increase supply. Do it in an
> > environmentally sensible manner.
>
> See above, lamebrain. If you believe that supply and demand are what
> drives oil prices since 1973, then you haven't been paying attention.
>
The is a thriving market for oil and oil based products.
> > >> > They didnt want new refineries.
> >
> > > No, that's not true at all. The oil companies don't want to build more
> > > refineries, or expand capacity in refineries already on line, because
> > > it artificially keeps the price up.
> >
> > That's an assertion. Prove it. The fact is, refining has been a money
> > losing game for decades.
>
> No, Bill, it hasn't. The oil companies own the refineries, and the oil
> companies are making lots of money. You act like refineries are owned
> by small little middle men, who are being squeezed somehow. Puh-leez.
>
They were, but they couldn't make any profit and only the large
refineries generally now remain.
> ExxonMobil makes a large portion of the $100/bbl, they make all of the
> money they charge to transport the oil to the refinery, and they own
> the refinery. the only thing they don't own are the gas stations
> themselves.
>
Really?
> So, can you guess the only part of the chain that's being
> squeezed these days? Come on... guess for me... see if you're right...
>
I don't know, what?
> > > They PURPOSELY try to propose new
> > > refineries in places they know will reject them. I can't believe
> > > you're gullible enough to think that, with all of the hurting cities
> > > in this country -- all of the cities who've seen their manufacturing
> > > base dry up -- they would ALL reject a new refinery, and the jobs they
> > > provide.
> >
> > The refinery should be where the oil is.
>
> That's not practical, and if you knew anything about the process you
> would know that. When you refine a barrel of oil, you get several
> different products, which means separate transportation for each. So
> you transfer the crude to the country or area in which you're going to
> sell it, and THEN you refine it.
>
That's what I'm saying, where the oil is. The oil coming into the US
*is* at some harbour or another. So you put the refineries near those
places.
> > > > They didnt want new nuke power plants.
> >
> > > Nuclear power plants are too expensive,
> >
> > Now that's nonsense. France gets 80% of its electrical power from
> > nuclear power plants. At the same time it supports a massively
> > inefficient economic system. How does it do that? How about with the
> > nuclear power.
>
> France paid for its nukes using tax money. The United States doesn't
> work that way, for one thing. For another, they built them years ago.
> a 1600 megawatt plant is being proposed in Idaho right now. The
> initial cost estimate is $4.5 billion (it'll end up more than double
> that), and it won't be on line for 10-12 years.
>
It takes a while to build nuke plants. That's why the US should've
started earlier.
> If the thing only ends up costing $6 billion, capitalized for 10-12
> years before the first dollar in revenue is received, that translates
> to $10-12 billion. And that's before one kwh is pumped out of the
> thing. That could buy a shitload of wind turbines and solar panels...
>
I don't understand how many times I have to explain basic
science/engineering to people like you. Solar and wind is not on-demand
power, it only gives you power at the vagaries of the sun or the wind.
Nuclear power is base power. It's there 24/7, you can count on it.
> > > and there is still no solution
> > > to the waste problem, anyway.
> >
> > Because there is no waste problem. Bury the material in a mountain in
> > Nevada. End of story.
>
> Not the end of the problem. The people of Nevada don't want it there.
> Why should they have to sit on everyone else's waste?
>
Because they have the best place to put it. You act like it's the
slightest even inconvenience to them, it isn't.
> Why don't we just bury it in your back yard, Bill?
>
Because the ground water around here is near the surface and it rains
too much. I base where the plants should go and where the waste should
be stored on science and engineering and economics and real things like
that, not in trying to put it as far from me as possible.
> > > And if we could replace all of the cars
> > > with electric cars, and only use oil to produce electricity, we
> > > wouldn't have much of a problem, anyway, even if we had to double
> > > capacity on the grid.
> >
> > EVs are a very sensible idea although they should not be powered by oil
> > in power plants.
>
> it would still use less oil, which was the point.
>
You think it's more efficient to run battery powered cars from
electricity generated non-locally in oil burning plants than it is to
run those same cars on gasoline?
> > > > They let Israel dictate middle east policy.
> >
> > > ExxonMobil dictates Middle east policy, not Israel.
> >
> > Really?
>
> Oh, yeah. ExxonMobil, Texaco, BP...
>
Nope.
> > > > They let Israel declare war in the middle east for them.
> >
> > > Ditto. Israel wasn't actually in favor of the Iraq invasion, and the
> > > result of that occupation -- a Shiite theocracy aligned with Iran --
> > > is probably not in Israel's favor, either.
> >
> > So you are coming out against the anti-Semitic faction around here?
>
> I don't have a problem with Israel. They are not the source of all of
> the problems in the Middle East. Western Colonialism is.
>
No it isn't. The Middle East has problems because this is a modern world
and they are run by and living in medieval societies. They wish
democracy, see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7267100.stm
> > > > They bough BIG SUVs....
> >
> > > Okay, you got one right. Every time I hear one of these soccer moms
> > > with two small kids complain about the price of gas, I laugh in her
> > > face and remind her that she, her husband and their two kids could fit
> > > in my little car, and it gets 30-35 mpg most of the time...
> >
> > Or you could do better and ride your bike.
>
> I do that when it's practical. But it's not practical going back and
> forth to work for me. I take the train for that.
>
There's a mix of ways to get around. I think that EVs which could be
driven onto trains are part of the solution.
Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )
George Grapman wrote:
>
> Still waiting for Bush to jawbone OPEC to lower prices.
>
You've had this explained to you repeatedly. You forget fast.
Steve
In other words, poor Matt has no response to the facts..
>> Do you really believe that the power company's would be looking to
>> build them if they could do other things cheaper?
>
>Yes, I'm sure they would. Were it not for little things like Three
>Mile Island,
>Trojan Nuclear Power Plant, Fort St Vrain, the Savannah River Plant...
>
>Did you really not know any of this?
Mostly stuff that was blown out of proportion..Did you really not know
any of that?
>> >> Sorry, but you WILL be seeing new Nukes here before too long..
>>
>> >Where? This is a NIMBY problem of a large scale.
>>
>> No at all.. I'd sooner have a nuke near me than be downwind to a big
>> coal plant.. no emissions you know...
>
>Perhaps you would. However, most people would not. In this particular
>case,
I doubt that you are qualified to speak for most people...
>I agree with you, they are generally safer. But that doesn't change
>people's
>minds after Chernobyl and TMI.
Comparing Chernobyl to US nukes is like comparing Russian automobiles
to BMW's... and TMI is also obsolete....
>> >> They have reached the point where they are now competitive with fossil
>> >> plants..
>>
>> >I don't know if "competitive" is the right answer, and yesterday's
>> >little disaster
>> >in Florida didn't help much. Coal and gas plants rarely go off-line,
>> >after all.
>>
>> <ROFL> bullshit... the problems were all on the electrical side..
>> that would have tripped off any generator.. the tripping action
>> occurs on the electrical equipment.. it doesn't even know that the
>> plant is nuclear....
>
>And yet, only the nuclear plants turned off. Why is that?
They didn't turn off, they tripped off, dummy.. perhaps they weren't
the only ones, perhaps they were the closest to the electric fault.
>> and trust me when I say that coal and gas plants trip off all the
>> time... It just doesn't make the news as much....
>
>Really. Why don't you cite a few. Just for fun.
Like I said, they don't make headlines.. The news media doesn't care
The fact is that a great deal of generating unit trips are because of
problems on the electric side which doesn't care about what turns the
generator.
In any event, here's a list of outages.. do a search on the word
"trip"and see for yourself.
Steve
whoops, forgot the cite
http://www.nerc.com/~filez/dawg-disturbancereports.html
Another note: It may come as a surprise to the loons, but other than
how the steam is generated, there's very little difference between a
nuclear power plant and a coal fired generating plant..
and here's another flash, when the generator trips off the system due
to a system disturbance, the steam generation part of the plant MUST
shut down..
Kurt Lochner
Just when I think you couldn't possibly post something stupider
than your explanations of magnetic capacitors and Coulomb's Law..
--
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT
news:<og8elu4eaudlftq93...@4ax.com>
"any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."
--
"Coulomb's Law " Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
--kicking hippies <steven...@yahoo.com>
Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:28:01 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID:
53150fee-bc34-40e3-912c-be62297c363b%4072g2000hsu.googlegroups.com
--
You go and expose your intentional ignorance even worse..
>Another note: It may come as a surprise to the loons, but other than
>how the steam is generated, there's very little difference between a
>nuclear power plant and a coal fired generating plant..
OMFG! "very little difference".. *>LOL!<*
--Did you eat another big bowl of "Stupid!" for dinner again?
______________________________________________________________________
Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:11:30 GMT
news:<i4tp5v4c5ulhakvei...@4ax.com>
"I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."
--
Canyon <parkie...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:59:42 GMT
news:<rg6q5vgq29cerpocl...@4ax.com>
"I don't need to back anything up, you moron"
--
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:57:10 GMT
news:<jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>
"I have no need to demonstrate what I know,[..]"
George Grapman
>
> George Grapman wrote:
>> Still waiting for Bush to jawbone OPEC to lower prices.
>>
> You've had this explained to you repeatedly. You forget fast.
>
>
A president can not tell OPEC what to do.
OPEC does not set prices.
When I note that in 2000 Bush said Clinton should "jawbone"
OPEC to lower prices the "explanations" are:
Clinton could do it but Bush can not.
Silence
Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )
George Grapman wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' ) wrote:
> >
> > George Grapman wrote:
> >> Still waiting for Bush to jawbone OPEC to lower prices.
> >>
> > You've had this explained to you repeatedly. You forget fast.
> >
> >
> The "explanations" have been:
>
> A president can not tell OPEC what to do.
>
A president can tell OPEC what to do, I didn't say otherwise.
> OPEC does not set prices.
>
OPEC doesn't set prices, the market does.
> When I note that in 2000 Bush said Clinton should "jawbone"
> OPEC to lower prices the "explanations" are:
>
> Clinton could do it but Bush can not.
> Silence
>
I've explained this several times. I didn't reply with silence.
steven...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2:58 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
>
> Just when I think you couldn't possibly post something stupider
> than your explanations of magnetic capacitors and Coulomb's Law..
> --
> <news:og8elu4eaudlftq93...@4ax.com>
>
> "any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."
> --
> "Coulomb's Law " Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
> that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
> Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:28:01 -0800 (PST)
> Message-ID:
> 53150fee-bc34-40e3-912c-be62297c363b%4072g2000hsu.googlegroups.com
> --
>
> You go and expose your intentional ignorance even worse..
>
> >Another note: It may come as a surprise to the loons, but other than
> >how the steam is generated, there's very little difference between a
> >nuclear power plant and a coal fired generating plant..
>
> OMFG! "very little difference".. *>LOL!<*
>
Just for fun, let's imagine that Licknutz Lochner would actually try
to explain what exactly is so different about the turbine/generators
in a nuclear plant compared to those in a coal fired plant.. <LOL>
just for fun, that is.. because, of course, he doesn't have a clue
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner was laughing, at the expense of:
> >
> > On Feb 27, 2:58 pm, Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Just when I think you couldn't possibly post something stupider
> > than your explanations of magnetic capacitors and Coulomb's Law..
> > --
> > Steven Canyon <G...@dog.soldiers> Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT
> > <news:og8elu4eaudlftq93...@4ax.com>
> >
> > "any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."
> > --
> > "Coulomb's Law " Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
> > that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
> > --kicking hippies <stevencan...@yahoo.com>
> > Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:28:01 -0800 (PST)
> > Message-ID:
> > 53150fee-bc34-40e3-912c-be62297c363b%4072g2000hsu.googlegroups.com
> > --
> >
> > You go and expose your intentional ignorance even worse..
> >
> > >Another note: It may come as a surprise to the loons, but other than
> > >how the steam is generated, there's very little difference between a
> > >nuclear power plant and a coal fired generating plant..
> >
> > OMFG! "very little difference".. *>LOL!<*
>
>to explain what exactly is so different about the turbine/gen[..]
It's not just the "turbine/generators" that are "different", crayon..
--As has been said of you before, you must live in a simple world..
steven...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> "semencan...@yahoo.com" was again whimpering for attention:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kurt Lochner was laughing, at the expense of:
>
>
> > > Just when I think you couldn't possibly post something stupider
> > > than your explanations of magnetic capacitors and Coulomb's Law..
> > > --
> > > Steven Canyon <G...@dog.soldiers> Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT
> > > <news:og8elu4eaudlftq93...@4ax.com>
>
> > > "any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."
> > > --
> > > "Coulomb's Law " Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
> > > that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
> > > --kicking hippies <stevencan...@yahoo.com>
> > > Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:28:01 -0800 (PST)
> > > Message-ID:
> > > 53150fee-bc34-40e3-912c-be62297c363b%4072g2000hsu.googlegroups.com
> > > --
>
> > > You go and expose your intentional ignorance even worse..
>
> > > >Another note: It may come as a surprise to the loons, but other than
> > > >how the steam is generated, there's very little difference between a
> > > >nuclear power plant and a coal fired generating plant..
>
> > > OMFG! "very little difference".. *>LOL!<*
>
> >Just for fun, let's imagine that [Mr. Lochner] would actually
> >to explain what exactly is so different about the turbine/gen[..]
>
> It's not just the "turbine/generators" that are "different", crayon..
>
> --As has been said of you before, you must live in a simple world..
<ROTFLMAO> As expected.. Licky Lochner is all noise and no poise...
I didn't really expect him to answer... but I'll ask again.... he
still won't answer, of course
other than how the steam is generated, what exactly are these
significant differences between a nuclear power plant and a coal fired
generating plant?
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner continued laughing, at the expense of:
> >
> >"senile...@yaboo.com" was again whimpering for attention:
> > >
> > > Kurt Lochner was laughing, at the expense of:
> > > >
> > > > than your explanations of magnetic capacitors and Coulomb's Law..
> > > > --
> > > > Steven Canyon <G...@dog.soldiers> Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT
> > > > <news:og8elu4eaudlftq93...@4ax.com>
> > > >
> > > > "any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."
> > > > --
> > > > "Coulomb's Law " Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
> > > > that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
> > > > --kicking hippies <stevencan...@yahoo.com>
> > > > Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:28:01 -0800 (PST)
> > > > Message-ID:
> > > > 53150fee-bc34-40e3-912c-be62297c363b%4072g2000hsu.googlegroups.com
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > You go and expose your intentional ignorance even worse..
> > > >
> > > > >Another note: It may come as a surprise to the loons, but other than
> > > > >how the steam is generated, there's very little difference between a
> > > > >nuclear power plant and a coal fired generating plant..
> > > >
> > > > OMFG! "very little difference".. *>LOL!<*
> > >
> > >Just for fun, let's imagine that [Mr. Lochner] would actually
> > >to explain what exactly is so different about the turbine/gen[..]
> >
> > It's not just the "turbine/generators" that are "different", crayon..
> >
> > --As has been said of you before, you must live in a simple world..
>
Yes, as expected, senile caveman over simplified the subject to
absurd levels (eg reductio ad absurdium) in order to make a silly
claim that makes sense to his malignant narcissism..
>other than how the steam is generated, what exactly are these
>significant differences [..]
Oh, things like the "containment vessel", backup cooling systems
that don't spill hazardous waste into the local environment, the
control systems, little picky details like that..
Any further discussion or education of your simple-mindedness
will require another cup of coffee and billings for my time..
--"Other than how the steam is generated" *>LOL!<
steven...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> "senilecave...@yaboo.com" was again whimpering for attention:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kurt Lochner continued laughing, at the expense of:
>
<ROFL> that's all part of the steam generation process, you halfwit.
> Any further discussion or education of your simple-mindedness
> will require another cup of coffee and billings for my time..
Run away, Licky...go get Iris to kiss you...make it all better....
> --"Other than how the steam is generated" *>LOL!<
Take that away and all you have is the turbine/generator systems...
Like I said, Licky Locknutz is all spit and no wit....
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
> >
> >"senile...@yaboo.com" was again whimpering for attention:
> > >
> > > Kurt Lochner continued laughing, at the expense of:
> > > >
*>LOL!<* What part of "nuclear" did you not comprehend?
> > Any further discussion or education of your simple-mindedness
> > will require another cup of coffee and billings for my time..
> >
> > --"Other than how the steam is generated" *>LOL!<
>
>Run away[..]
Yup, that's precisely what I expect you to do..
--Anything else you'd like to pretend you know about?
Steve
"a couple of users have made it clear that they've made
steven...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> "senilecave...@yaboo.com" was again whimpering for attention:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
>
>
> > > > Kurt Lochner continued laughing, at the expense of:
>
<ROFL> Nuclear power plants do use steam to drive the turbines, Licky-
boy....
I didn't really expect Lochner to be that stupid!
Steve
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
> >
> > >
> > > Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Kurt Lochner continued laughing, at the expense of:
> > > > > >
Past that over-simplification, what other similarities did you
think up to pose as rhetorical questions that only serve to
show what a simpleton right-wing moron you are?
> > > > Any further discussion or education of your simple-mindedness
> > > > will require another cup of coffee and billings for my time..
> > > >
> > > > --"Other than how the steam is generated" *>LOL!<
> > >
> > >Run away[..]
> >
> > Yup, that's precisely what I expect you to do..
> >
> > --Anything else you'd like to pretend you know about?
*>cricket.wav<*
--See subject header for details..
____________________________________________________________
"Coulomb's Law "Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
--kicking hippies <steven...@yahoo.com>
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_fall2003.web.dir/Kevin_Jones/coulombslaw.html
"The force that one particle exerts on another particle is
directly proportional to the product of their charges and
inversely proportional to the square of their separation."
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
> >
> >"senile...@yaboo.com" was again whimpering for attention:
> > >
> > > Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Kurt Lochner continued laughing, at the expense of:
> > > > > >
> >
> > *>LOL!<* What part of "nuclear" did you not comprehend?
>
Similar, but not enough to support your over-simplifications..
> > > > Any further discussion or education of your simple-mindedness
> > > > will require another cup of coffee and billings for my time..
> > > >
> > > > --"Other than how the steam is generated" *>LOL!<
> > >
> > >Run away[..]
> >
> > Yup, that's precisely what I expect you to do..
>
>Run away[..]
Yeah, and don't forget to thump your hollow chest about how 'smart'
you are.. It wouldn't be the same without that, hunh?
> > --Anything else you'd like to pretend you know about?
>
>Take that away and all you have is the turbine/generator systems...
Nope, you're entirely clueless..
--Not that anyone would actually care, but thanks for playing..
____________________________________________________________________
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT
news:<og8elu4eaudlftq93...@4ax.com>
"any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."
--
"Coulomb's Law " Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
--kicking hippies <steven...@yahoo.com>
Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:28:01 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID:
53150fee-bc34-40e3-912c-be62297c363b%4072g2000hsu.googlegroups.com
--
steven...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> "senilecave...@yaboo.com" was again whimpering for attention:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
>
>
> > > > Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
>
>
> > > > > > Kurt Lochner continued laughing, at the expense of:
>
<LOL> so why can't Lochner answer the question?
...because he's a moron....
other than how the steam is generated, what exactly are these
significant differences between a nuclear power plant and a coal fired
generating plant?
See why I don't bother engaging Lochner much?... It's way to easy
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
> >
> > >
> > > Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Kurt Lochner continued laughing, at the expense of:
> > > > > >
And that's where the similarity ends..
> > > > Any further discussion or education of your simple-mindedness
> > > > will require another cup of coffee and billings for my time..
> > > >
> > > > --"Other than how the steam is generated" *>LOL!<
> > >
> > >Run away[..]
> >
> > Yup, that's precisely what I expect you to do..
> >
> > --Anything else you'd like to pretend you know about?
>
>I didn't really expect Lochner to [..]
Show you how intentionally ignorant you are?
--Examples follow..
_________________________________________________________________
"I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."
--Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com>
"I don't need to back anything up"
--Canyon <parkie...@nospam.yahoo.com>
"of course there was armillary in 1795.."
--Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
"<RFL> The middle class in the USA is flourishing.."
--<steven...@yahoo.com>
"The only time capacitors are doing anything they have
significant magnetic fields, Lochner."
--Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
"Coulomb's Law " Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
--kicking hippies <steven...@yahoo.com>
"..but other than how the steam is generated, there's very
little difference between a nuclear power plant and a coal
fired generating plant.."
--Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
> >
> > >
> > > Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kurt Lochner continued laughing, at the expense of:
> > > > > > > >
What question was that, Caveman? Did you miss something again..
Let's go back over your claim again, shall we?
"..but other than how the steam is generated, there's very
little difference between a nuclear power plant and a coal
fired generating plant.."
You've again proven what a worthless little right-wing monkey you are..
--Show us that little dance again, m'kay? *>LOL!<*
__________________________________________________________________
"I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."
--Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com>
"I don't need to back anything up"
--Canyon <parkie...@nospam.yahoo.com>
"of course there was armillary in 1795.."
--Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
"<RFL> The middle class in the USA is flourishing.."
--<steven...@yahoo.com>
"The only time capacitors are doing anything they have
significant magnetic fields, Lochner."
--Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
"Coulomb's Law " Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
--kicking hippies <steven...@yahoo.com>
"..but other than how the steam is generated, there's very
little difference between a nuclear power plant and a coal
fired generating plant.."
--Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
3975 Dead
Give the pedophile credit, Kurt. His knowledge of energy production
matches that of all of 17th century Scotland...
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News...@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
steven...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> "senilecave...@yaboo.com" was again whimpering for attention:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
>
>
> > > > Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
>
>
> > > > > > Kurt Lochner continued laughing, at the expense of:
>
<LOL> No dummy, that's actually where the similarity begins.. from
the turbine/generators and out to the step up transformers, nuclear
plants and coal plants are the same...
So why can't you explain what are the differences, other than the
steam generation, between nuclear plants and coal plants?
Maybe Iris can help you, Licky...
steven...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> "senilecave...@yaboo.com" was *STILL* whimpering for attention:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
>
>
> > > > Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
>
>
> > > > > > Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
>
>
> > > > > > > > Kurt Lochner continued laughing, at the expense of:
>
<LOL> So what are those differences, Licky?
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner was teasing the right-wing lower arthropod known as:
> >
> >"senile...@yaboo.com" was again whimpering for attention:
> >>
> >> Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
> >> >
> >> >"senile...@yaboo.com" was again whimpering for attention:
> >> > >
> >> > > Kurt Lochner continued laughing, at the expense of:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >"senile...@yaboo.com" was again whimpering for attention:
> >> > > > >Just for fun, let's imagine that [Mr. Lochner] would actually
> >> > > > >to explain what exactly is so different about the turbine/gen[..]
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It's not just the "turbine/generators" that are "different", crayon..
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --As has been said of you before, you must live in a simple world..
> >> > >
> >> > ><ROTFLMAO> As expected [..]
> >> >
> >> > Yes, as expected, senile caveman over simplified the subject to
> >> > absurd levels (eg reductio ad absurdium) in order to make a silly
> >> > claim that makes sense to his malignant narcissism..
> >> >
> >> > >other than how the steam is generated, what exactly are these
> >> > >significant differences [..]
> >> >
> >> > Oh, things like the "containment vessel", backup cooling systems
> >> > that don't spill hazardous waste into the local environment, the
> >> > control systems, little picky details like that..
> >>
> >><ROFL> that's all part of the steam generation process[..]
> >
> > *>LOL!<* What part of "nuclear" did you not comprehend?
> >
> >> > Any further discussion or education of your simple-mindedness
> >> > will require another cup of coffee and billings for my time..
> >> >
> >> > --"Other than how the steam is generated" *>LOL!<
> >>
> >>Run away[..]
> >
> > Yup, that's precisely what I expect you to do..
> >
> > --Anything else you'd like to pretend you know about?
>
> Give the pedophile credit, Kurt. His knowledge of energy
> production matches that of all of 17th century Scotland...
"If it's not Scottish, it's CRR_RR_RR_RR_RR_RR_APP!"
--With apologies to Patrick Stewart and Saturday Night Live..
Steve
...and now Fatty chimes in... and of course, his knowledge of power
plants is no better than Licky's
...and there's no way he can answer the question either...
other than how the steam is generated, what exactly are these
significant differences between a nuclear power plant and a coal fired
generating plant?
steven...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> 3975 Dead wrote:
>
> > Kurt Lochner was teasing the right-wing lower arthropod known as:
>
>
> > >> Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
>
>
> > >> > > Kurt Lochner continued laughing, at the expense of:
>
Fatass Jamieson can't help you, Lochner.. you got yourself into this
and you still can't answer the question....
other than how the steam is generated, what exactly are these
significant differences between a nuclear power plant and a coal fired
generating plant?
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
> >
> > >
> > > Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kurt Lochner continued laughing, at the expense of:
> > > > > > > >
- - - - - - - -->
> > > > > > > > >Just for fun, let's imagine that [Mr. Lochner] would actually
> > > > > > > > >to explain what exactly is so different about the turbine/gen[..]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's not just the "turbine/generators" that are "different", crayon..
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --As has been said of you before, you must live in a simple world..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > ><ROTFLMAO> As expected [..]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, as expected, senile caveman over simplified the subject to
> > > > > > absurd levels (eg reductio ad absurdium) in order to make a silly
> > > > > > claim that makes sense to his malignant narcissism..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >other than how the steam is generated, what exactly are these
> > > > > > >significant differences [..]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, things like the "containment vessel", backup cooling systems
> > > > > > that don't spill hazardous waste into the local environment, the
> > > > > > control systems, little picky details like that..
> > > > >
> > > > ><ROFL> that's all part of the steam generation process[..]
> > > >
> > > > *>LOL!<* What part of "nuclear" did you not comprehend?
> > >
> > >Nuclear power plants do use steam to drive the turbines, [..]
> >
> > And that's where the similarity ends..
>
><LOL> No dummy, that's actually where the similarity begins..
You again are trying to restate your obvious blunder..
"..but other than how the steam is generated, there's very
little difference between a nuclear power plant and a coal
fired generating plant.."
*>LOL!<* Like your "Coulomb's Law", you're simply too stupid
to be making such 'grand pronouncements' about your imagined
intellectual prowess..
> > > > > > Any further discussion or education of your simple-mindedness
> > > > > > will require another cup of coffee and billings for my time..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --"Other than how the steam is generated" *>LOL!<
> > > > >
> > > > >Run away[..]
> > > >
> > > > Yup, that's precisely what I expect you to do..
> > > >
> > > > --Anything else you'd like to pretend you know about?
> > >
> > >I didn't really expect Lochner to [..]
> >
> > Show you how intentionally ignorant you are?
>
>So why can't you explain what are the differences,
So why should I explain the obvious to an engineering-impaired
right-wing retard that dishonestly equivocates his simpleton
beliefs with facts?
I only stated that you're so obliviously stupid, it is to laugh..
--Examples follow..
_________________________________________________________________
"I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."
--Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com>
"I don't need to back anything up"
--Canyon <parkie...@nospam.yahoo.com>
"of course there was armillary in 1795.."
--Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
"<RFL> The middle class in the USA is flourishing.."
--<steven...@yahoo.com>
"The only time capacitors are doing anything they have
significant magnetic fields, Lochner."
--Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
"Coulomb's Law " Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
--kicking hippies <steven...@yahoo.com>
"..but other than how the steam is generated, there's very
little difference between a nuclear power plant and a coal
fired generating plant.."
--Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
> >
> > >
> > > Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, as expected, senile caveman over simplified the subject to
> > > > > > > > absurd levels (eg reductio ad absurdium) in order to make a silly
> > > > > > > > claim that makes sense to his malignant narcissism..
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >other than how the steam is generated, what exactly are these
> > > > > > > > >significant differences [..]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Oh, things like the "containment vessel", backup cooling systems
> > > > > > > > that don't spill hazardous waste into the local environment, the
> > > > > > > > control systems, little picky details like that..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > ><ROFL> that's all part of the steam generation process[..]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *>LOL!<* What part of "nuclear" did you not comprehend?
> > > > >
> > > > ><ROFL> Nuclear power plants do use steam to drive the turbines,[..]
> > > >
> > > > Past that over-simplification, what other similarities did you
> > > > think up to pose as rhetorical questions that only serve to
> > > > show what a simpleton right-wing moron you are?
> > >
> > ><LOL> so why can't Lochner answer the question?
> >
> > What question was that, Caveman? Did you miss something again..
> >
> > Let's go back over your claim again, shall we?
> >
> > "..but other than how the steam is generated, there's very
> > little difference between a nuclear power plant and a coal
> > fired generating plant.."
> >
> > You've again proven what a worthless little right-wing monkey you are..
>
What would you like to microdebate about those "little differences"?
*>LOL!<* Sorry, but you're simply too stupid..
--Show us that little dance again, m'kay? *>LOL!<*
__________________________________________________________________
"I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."
--Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com>
"I don't need to back anything up"
--Canyon <parkie...@nospam.yahoo.com>
"of course there was armillary in 1795.."
--Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
"<RFL> The middle class in the USA is flourishing.."
--<steven...@yahoo.com>
"The only time capacitors are doing anything they have
significant magnetic fields, Lochner."
--Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
"Coulomb's Law " Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
--kicking hippies <steven...@yahoo.com>
"..but other than how the steam is generated, there's very
little difference between a nuclear power plant and a coal
fired generating plant.."
--Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
Steve
Yep, can't refute that, can you, little man?
>*>LOL!<* Like your "Coulomb's Law", you're simply too stupid
>to be making such 'grand pronouncements' about your imagined
>intellectual prowess..
>
>> > > > > > Any further discussion or education of your simple-mindedness
>> > > > > > will require another cup of coffee and billings for my time..
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --"Other than how the steam is generated" *>LOL!<
>> > > > >
>> > > > >Run away[..]
>> > > >
>> > > > Yup, that's precisely what I expect you to do..
>> > > >
>> > > > --Anything else you'd like to pretend you know about?
>> > >
>> > >I didn't really expect Lochner to [..]
>> >
>> > Show you how intentionally ignorant you are?
>>
>>So why can't you explain what are the differences,
>
>So why should I explain the obvious to an engineering-impaired
>right-wing retard that dishonestly equivocates his simpleton
>beliefs with facts?
So why can't you explain what are the differences?
>I only stated that you're so obliviously stupid, it is to laugh..
>
<LOL> All Licky can do is duck and run....
Kurt Lochner
> >
> > Kurt Lochner was teasing the lower primate known as:- - ->
> > >>Run away[..]
> > >
> > > Yup, that's precisely what I expect you to do..
> > >
> > > --Anything else you'd like to pretend you know about?
> >
> > Give the pedophile credit, Kurt. His knowledge of energy production
> > matches that of all of 17th century Scotland...
>
>...and now Fatty chimes in... and of course, his knowledge of power
>plants is no better than Licky's
Which is still light-years ahead of you, Senile Caveman..
>...and there's no way he can answer the question either...
What question was that?
>other than how the steam is generated,
Oh, you're still on about that? *>LOL!<*
--Got any "magnetic capacitors" yet, sparky?
__________________________________________________________________
"I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."
--Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com>
"I don't need to back anything up"
--Canyon <parkie...@nospam.yahoo.com>
"of course there was armillary in 1795.."
--Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
"<RFL> The middle class in the USA is flourishing.."
--<steven...@yahoo.com>
"The only time capacitors are doing anything they have
significant magnetic fields, Lochner."
--Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
"Coulomb's Law " Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
--kicking hippies <steven...@yahoo.com>
"..but other than how the steam is generated, there's very
little difference between a nuclear power plant and a coal
fired generating plant.."
--Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner repliedx to:
> >
> > 3975 Dead wrote:
> > >
> > > Kurt Lochner was teasing the right-wing lower arthropod known as:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Kurt Lochner continued laughing, at the expense of:
> > > >> > > >
- - - -- - - -->
No help is needed, despite your crude insinuation..
>you got yourself into this [..]
Nope, that was yourself.. You made these claims..
--Examples follow..
__________________________________________________________________
"I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."
--Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com>
"I don't need to back anything up"
--Canyon <parkie...@nospam.yahoo.com>
"of course there was armillary in 1795.."
--Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
"<RFL> The middle class in the USA is flourishing.."
--<steven...@yahoo.com>
"The only time capacitors are doing anything they have
significant magnetic fields, Lochner."
--Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
"Coulomb's Law " Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
--kicking hippies <steven...@yahoo.com>
"..but other than how the steam is generated, there's very
little difference between a nuclear power plant and a coal
fired generating plant.."
--Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
steven...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> "senilecave...@yaboo.com" was again whimpering for attention:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 3975 Dead replied to:
>
> > > Kurt Lochner was teasing the lower primate known as:
>
> - - ->
> > > >>Run away[..]
>
> > > > Yup, that's precisely what I expect you to do..
>
> > > > --Anything else you'd like to pretend you know about?
>
> > > Give the pedophile credit, Kurt. His knowledge of energy production
> > > matches that of all of 17th century Scotland...
>
> >...and now Fatty chimes in... and of course, his knowledge of power
> >plants is no better than Licky's
>
> Which is still light-years ahead of you, Senile Caveman..
>
> >...and there's no way he can answer the question either...
>
> What question was that?
the one you cant answer...
other than how the steam is generated, what are the difference between
a nuclear power plant and a coal fired generating plant.."
> >other than how the steam is generated,
>
> Oh, you're still on about that? *>LOL!<*
Sorry to rub your nose in it... but like I said, it's such fun.
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
> >
> >"senile...@yaboo.com" was again whimpering for attention:
> > >
> > > Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
> > > >
> > > >"senile...@yaboo.com" was again whimpering for attention:
> > > > >
> > > > > Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"senile...@yaboo.com" was again whimpering for attention:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >"senile...@yaboo.com" was again whimpering for attention:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Kurt Lochner continued laughing, at the expense of:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >"senile...@yaboo.com" was again whimpering for attention:
> > > > > > > > > > >Just for fun, let's imagine that [Mr. Lochner] would actually
> > > > > > > > > > >to explain what exactly is so different about the turbine/gen[..]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It's not just the "turbine/generators" that are "different", crayon..
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --As has been said of you before, you must live in a simple world..
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ><ROTFLMAO> As expected [..]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, as expected, senile caveman over simplified the subject to
> > > > > > > > absurd levels (eg reductio ad absurdium) in order to make a silly
> > > > > > > > claim that makes sense to his malignant narcissism..
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >other than how the steam is generated, what exactly are these
> > > > > > > > >significant differences [..]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Oh, things like the "containment vessel", backup cooling systems
> > > > > > > > that don't spill hazardous waste into the local environment, the
> > > > > > > > control systems, little picky details like that..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > ><ROFL> that's all part of the steam generation process[..]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *>LOL!<* What part of "nuclear" did you not comprehend?
> > > > >
> > > > >Nuclear power plants do use steam to drive the turbines, [..]
> > > >
> > > > And that's where the similarity ends..
> > >
> > ><LOL> No dummy, that's actually where the similarity begins..
> >
> > You again are trying to restate your obvious blunder..
> >
> > "..but other than how the steam is generated, there's very
> > little difference between a nuclear power plant and a coal
> > fired generating plant.."
>
Sure can, and you have yet to prove your claim..
Let's see it..
> > *>LOL!<* Like your "Coulomb's Law", you're simply too stupid
> > to be making such 'grand pronouncements' about your imagined
> > intellectual prowess..
*>cricket.wav<*
> > > > > > > > Any further discussion or education of your simple-mindedness
> > > > > > > > will require another cup of coffee and billings for my time..
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --"Other than how the steam is generated" *>LOL!<
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Run away[..]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yup, that's precisely what I expect you to do..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --Anything else you'd like to pretend you know about?
> > > > >
> > > > >I didn't really expect Lochner to [..]
> > > >
> > > > Show you how intentionally ignorant you are?
> > >
> > >So why can't you explain what are the differences,
> >
> > So why should I explain the obvious to an engineering-impaired
> > right-wing retard that dishonestly equivocates his simpleton
> > beliefs with facts?
> >
> > I only stated that you're so obliviously stupid, it is to laugh..
>
>So why can't you explain what are the differences?
You made the claim, let's see you prove it..
--Remember what happened with your "Coulomb's Law"? *>LOL!<*
_________________________________________________________________
"I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."
--Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com>
"I don't need to back anything up"
--Canyon <parkie...@nospam.yahoo.com>
"of course there was armillary in 1795.."
--Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
"<RFL> The middle class in the USA is flourishing.."
--<steven...@yahoo.com>
"The only time capacitors are doing anything they have
significant magnetic fields, Lochner."
--Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
"Coulomb's Law " Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
--kicking hippies <steven...@yahoo.com>
"..but other than how the steam is generated, there's very
little difference between a nuclear power plant and a coal
fired generating plant.."
--Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner was exploiting the malignant narcissism exhibited by:
> >
> >"senile...@yaboo.com" was again whimpering for attention:
> > >
> > > 3975 Dead replied to:
> > > >
> > > > Kurt Lochner was teasing the lower primate known as:
> > > > >
- - - - ->
> > > > >>Run away[..]
> > > > >
> > > > > Yup, that's precisely what I expect you to do..
> > > > >
> > > > > --Anything else you'd like to pretend you know about?
> > > >
> > > > Give the pedophile credit, Kurt. His knowledge of energy production
> > > > matches that of all of 17th century Scotland...
> > >
> > >...and now Fatty chimes in... and of course, his knowledge of power
> > >plants is no better than Licky's
> >
> > Which is still light-years ahead of you, Senile Caveman..
> >
> > >...and there's no way he can answer the question either...
> >
> > What question was that?
> >
> >
> > Oh, you're still on about that? *>LOL!<*
>
You made the claim, prove it..
--Remember how your "Coulomb's Law" turned out? *>LOL!<*
__________________________________________________________________
"I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."
--Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com>
"I don't need to back anything up"
--Canyon <parkie...@nospam.yahoo.com>
"of course there was armillary in 1795.."
--Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
"<RFL> The middle class in the USA is flourishing.."
--<steven...@yahoo.com>
"The only time capacitors are doing anything they have
significant magnetic fields, Lochner."
--Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
"Coulomb's Law " Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
--kicking hippies <steven...@yahoo.com>
"..but other than how the steam is generated, there's very
little difference between a nuclear power plant and a coal
fired generating plant.."
--Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
3975 Dead
And if it's Steve Canyon, it is.
3975 Dead
<kurt_l...@DONOTSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>"senile...@yaboo.com" was again whimpering for attention:
>>
>> 3975 Dead replied to:
>> >
>> > Kurt Lochner was teasing the lower primate known as:
>> > >
>> > >"senile...@yaboo.com" was again whimpering for attention:
>- - ->
>> > >>Run away[..]
>> > >
>> > > Yup, that's precisely what I expect you to do..
>> > >
>> > > --Anything else you'd like to pretend you know about?
>> >
>> > Give the pedophile credit, Kurt. His knowledge of energy production
>> > matches that of all of 17th century Scotland...
>>
>>...and now Fatty chimes in... and of course, his knowledge of power
>>plants is no better than Licky's
>
>Which is still light-years ahead of you, Senile Caveman..
>
>>...and there's no way he can answer the question either...
>
>What question was that?
>
>>other than how the steam is generated,
>
>Oh, you're still on about that? *>LOL!<*
Kurt, just explain to that thing that when it is heated, water turns
to steam and expands, and will escape from a container with enough
force to turn a generating turbine.
He'll gainsay it, of course, but he'll be the only one who doesn't
notice that he's a complete asshole, and you'll have beaten him yet
again.
>
>--Got any "magnetic capacitors" yet, sparky?
>__________________________________________________________________
>
>"I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."
> --Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com>
>
>"I don't need to back anything up"
> --Canyon <parkie...@nospam.yahoo.com>
>
>"of course there was armillary in 1795.."
> --Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
>
>"<RFL> The middle class in the USA is flourishing.."
> --<steven...@yahoo.com>
>
> "The only time capacitors are doing anything they have
> significant magnetic fields, Lochner."
> --Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
>
>"Coulomb's Law " Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
> that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
> --kicking hippies <steven...@yahoo.com>
>
>"..but other than how the steam is generated, there's very
> little difference between a nuclear power plant and a coal
> fired generating plant.."
> --Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner wrote:
> >
> > 3975 Dead wrote:
> >>
> >> Kurt Lochner was teasing the right-wing lower arthropod known as:
> >> >
> >> >"senile...@yaboo.com" was again whimpering for attention:
> > > >>Run away[..]
> > > >
> > > > Yup, that's precisely what I expect you to do..
> > > >
> > > > --Anything else you'd like to pretend you know about?
> > >
> > > Give the pedophile credit, Kurt. His knowledge of energy
> > > production matches that of all of 17th century Scotland...
> >
> > "If it's not Scottish, it's CRR_RR_RR_RR_RR_RR_APP!"
> >
> > --With apologies to Patrick Stewart and Saturday Night Live..
>
> And if it's Steve Canyon, it is.
I thought "senile caveman" was apropos..
--Examples follow..
__________________________________________________________________
"I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."
--Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com>
"I don't need to back anything up"
--Canyon <parkie...@nospam.yahoo.com>
"of course there was armillary in 1795.."
--Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
"<RFL> The middle class in the USA is flourishing.."
--<steven...@yahoo.com>
"The only time capacitors are doing anything they have
significant magnetic fields, Lochner."
--Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
"Coulomb's Law " Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
--kicking hippies <steven...@yahoo.com>
"..but other than how the steam is generated, there's very
little difference between a nuclear power plant and a coal
fired generating plant.."
--Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner was again amused by the predictable histrionics of:
> >
> >"senile...@yaboo.com" was again whimpering for attention:
> > >
> > > 3975 Dead replied to:
> > > >
> > > > Kurt Lochner was teasing the lower primate known as:
> > > > >
> > > > >"senile...@yaboo.com" was again whimpering for attention:
> > > > >>Run away[..]
> > > > >
> > > > > Yup, that's precisely what I expect you to do..
> > > > >
> > > > > --Anything else you'd like to pretend you know about?
> > > >
> > > > Give the pedophile credit, Kurt. His knowledge of energy production
> > > > matches that of all of 17th century Scotland...
> > >
> > >...and now Fatty chimes in... and of course, his knowledge of power
> > >plants is no better than Licky's
> >
> > Which is still light-years ahead of you, Senile Caveman..
> >
> > >...and there's no way he can answer the question either...
> >
> > What question was that?
> >
> > >other than how the steam is generated,
> >
> > Oh, you're still on about that? *>LOL!<*
>
> Kurt, just explain to that thing that when it is heated, water turns
> to steam and expands, and will escape from a container with enough
> force to turn a generating turbine.
Oh, no.. He's the one claiming that nuclear power plants are
similar to coal-fired plants. Let's see how he supports that..
> He'll gainsay it, of course, but he'll be the only one who doesn't
> notice that he's a complete asshole, and you'll have beaten him yet
> again.
He's already gone silent, probably trying to google-scholar
his way out of the trap he laid for himself..
--Examples follow..
____________________________________________________________________
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT
news:<og8elu4eaudlftq93...@4ax.com>
"any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."
--
"Coulomb's Law " Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
--kicking hippies <steven...@yahoo.com>
Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:28:01 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID:
53150fee-bc34-40e3-912c-be62297c363b%4072g2000hsu.googlegroups.com
--
"Another note: It may come as a surprise to the loons, but other than
milt....@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2:58 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
>
> Just when I think you couldn't possibly post something stupider
> than your explanations of magnetic capacitors and Coulomb's Law..
> --
> <news:og8elu4eaudlftq93...@4ax.com>
>
> "any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."
> --
> "Coulomb's Law " Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
> that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
> Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:28:01 -0800 (PST)
> Message-ID:
> 53150fee-bc34-40e3-912c-be62297c363b%4072g2000hsu.googlegroups.com
> --
>
>
> >how the steam is generated, there's very little difference between a
> >nuclear power plant and a coal fired generating plant..
>
>
Jesus God... he didn't say that...
That's like saying that, other than how the car actually works there's
really no difference between a how gasoline powered car gets from New
York to LA, and how a Lucky Charms and Cheetos-eating human gets there
by foot.
Besides the fact that not all nuclear plants run using steam, there is
no "except for" here. HOW the steam is generated to run the turbine is
the entire issue.
Just when I think they can't get any dumber...
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> Canyon <stevencan...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:11:30 GMT
> <news:i4tp5v4c5ulhakvei...@4ax.com>
>
> "I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."
> --
> Canyon <parkie_u_w...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:59:42 GMT
> <news:rg6q5vgq29cerpocl...@4ax.com>
>
> "I don't need to back anything up, you moron"
> --
> Steven Canyon <G...@dog.soldiers> Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:57:10 GMT
> <news:jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>
>
> "I have no need to demonstrate what I know,[..]"
milt....@gmail.com
wrote:
> "semencan...@yahoo.com" was again whimpering for attention:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kurt Lochner was laughing, at the expense of:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 2:58 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Just when I think you couldn't possibly post something stupider
> > > than your explanations of magnetic capacitors and Coulomb's Law..
> > > --
> > > Steven Canyon <G...@dog.soldiers> Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT
> > > <news:og8elu4eaudlftq93...@4ax.com>
>
> > > "any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."
> > > --
> > > "Coulomb's Law " Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
> > > that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
> > > --kicking hippies <stevencan...@yahoo.com>
> > > Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:28:01 -0800 (PST)
> > > Message-ID:
> > > 53150fee-bc34-40e3-912c-be62297c363b%4072g2000hsu.googlegroups.com
> > > --
>
> > > You go and expose your intentional ignorance even worse..
>
> > > >Another note: It may come as a surprise to the loons, but other than
> > > >how the steam is generated, there's very little difference between a
> > > >nuclear power plant and a coal fired generating plant..
>
> > > OMFG! "very little difference".. *>LOL!<*
>
> >to explain what exactly is so different about the turbine/gen[..]
>
> It's not just the "turbine/generators" that are "different", crayon..
>
> --As has been said of you before, you must live in a simple world..
I think we should replace the gasoline engine on his "baha" with a
dozen gerbils, a wheel and a turbine... after all, as long as you have
a turbine/generator, it shouldn't matter, should it?
Steve
Hmmmm so when is the mysterious "user" going to start talking me?
Steve
<zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:02:17 -0600, Kurt Lochner
><kurt_l...@DONOTSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"senile...@yaboo.com" was again whimpering for attention:
>>>
>>> 3975 Dead replied to:
>>> >
>>> > Kurt Lochner was teasing the lower primate known as:
>>> > >
>>> > >"senile...@yaboo.com" was again whimpering for attention:
>>- - ->
>>> > >>Run away[..]
>>> > >
>>> > > Yup, that's precisely what I expect you to do..
>>> > >
>>> > > --Anything else you'd like to pretend you know about?
>>> >
>>> > Give the pedophile credit, Kurt. His knowledge of energy production
>>> > matches that of all of 17th century Scotland...
>>>
>>>...and now Fatty chimes in... and of course, his knowledge of power
>>>plants is no better than Licky's
>>
>>Which is still light-years ahead of you, Senile Caveman..
>>
>>>...and there's no way he can answer the question either...
>>
>>What question was that?
>>
>>>other than how the steam is generated,
>>
>>Oh, you're still on about that? *>LOL!<*
>
>Kurt, just explain to that thing that when it is heated, water turns
>to steam and expands, and will escape from a container with enough
>force to turn a generating turbine.
Golly, since that happens in both a coal fired plant and a nuclear
plant.... what's the difference other than how that water is
heated?
>He'll gainsay it, of course, but he'll be the only one who doesn't
>notice that he's a complete asshole, and you'll have beaten him yet
>again.
<LOL> Like that's ever going to happen...
Steve
No, actually he can't.. and in fact Lochner never refuted anything
I've ever said.. not once.
I keep thinking that maybe someday he'll get lucky.. but that would
make him lucky licky... and that's just too funny....
So I'll just leave him now to ponder all that...
.
steven...@yahoo.com
Well yeah, Milt, and you can't refute it either... but you can always
try... take your best shot..
milt....@gmail.com
wrote:
> "senilecave...@yaboo.com" was again whimpering for attention:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
>
>
> > > > Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
>
>
> > > > > > Kurt Lochner elicited another knee jerk reaction from:
>
>
> > > > > > > > Kurt Lochner continued laughing, at the expense of:
>
This is one reason, besides the stalking, why I stopped even reading
his crap. I feel MY IQ points dropping off every time I respond to his
drivel.
Apparently thinks that, because the end result is steam turbines,
well, nuclear and coal plants are the same. Well, then... it's
settled, isn't it?
(sits here and waits for the terrorists to start smuggling coal from
the coal-fired plant, since it's basically the same as the uranium,
right? Think I'll be waiting here long?)
>
> --Examples follow..
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> "I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."
> --Canyon <stevencan...@nospam.yahoo.com>
>
> "I don't need to back anything up"
> --Canyon <parkie_u_w...@nospam.yahoo.com>
>
> "of course there was armillary in 1795.."
> --Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com>
>
> "<RFL> The middle class in the USA is flourishing.."
> --<stevencan...@yahoo.com>
>
> "The only time capacitors are doing anything they have
> significant magnetic fields, Lochner."
> --Steven Canyon <G...@dog.soldiers>
>
> "Coulomb's Law " Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
> that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
> --kicking hippies <stevencan...@yahoo.com>
>
> "..but other than how the steam is generated, there's very
> little difference between a nuclear power plant and a coal
> fired generating plant.."
> --Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com>
steven...@yahoo.com
So Milt is at a loss to make a rebutal too.. but that's OK, I knew he
couldn't do anything but bluster and spit..
what fun.
steven...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> 3975 Dead wrote:
>
> > Kurt Lochner was again amused by the predictable histrionics of:
>
>
> > > > 3975 Dead replied to:
>
> > > > > Kurt Lochner was teasing the lower primate known as:
>
> - - - - ->
> > > > > >>Run away[..]
>
> > > > > > Yup, that's precisely what I expect you to do..
>
> > > > > > --Anything else you'd like to pretend you know about?
>
> > > > > Give the pedophile credit, Kurt. His knowledge of energy production
> > > > > matches that of all of 17th century Scotland...
>
> > > >...and now Fatty chimes in... and of course, his knowledge of power
> > > >plants is no better than Licky's
>
> > > Which is still light-years ahead of you, Senile Caveman..
>
> > > >...and there's no way he can answer the question either...
>
> > > What question was that?
>
> > > >other than how the steam is generated,
>
> > > Oh, you're still on about that? *>LOL!<*
>
> > Kurt, just explain to that thing that when it is heated, water turns
> > to steam and expands, and will escape from a container with enough
> > force to turn a generating turbine.
>
> Oh, no.. He's the one claiming that nuclear power plants are
> similar to coal-fired plants. Let's see how he supports that..
>
> > He'll gainsay it, of course, but he'll be the only one who doesn't
> > notice that he's a complete asshole, and you'll have beaten him yet
> > again.
>
> He's already gone silent, probably trying to google-scholar
> his way out of the trap he laid for himself..
>
still waiting for an attempted rebuttal to the following.....
It may come as a surprise to the loons, but other than
how the steam is generated, there's very little difference between a
nuclear power plant and a coal fired generating plant..
No takers yet
milt....@gmail.com
wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > > than your explanations of magnetic capacitors and Coulomb's Law..
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Steven Canyon <G...@dog.soldiers> Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT
> > > > > > > > > <news:og8elu4eaudlftq93...@4ax.com>
>
> > > > > > > > > "any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > "Coulomb's Law " Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
> > > > > > > > > that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
> > > > > > > > > --kicking hippies <stevencan...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > > > Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:28:01 -0800 (PST)
> > > > > > > > > Message-ID:
> > > > > > > > > 53150fee-bc34-40e3-912c-be62297c363b%4072g2000hsu.googlegroups.com
> > > > > > > > > --
>
> > > > > > > > > You go and expose your intentional ignorance even worse..
>
> > > > > > > > > >how the steam is generated, there's very little difference between a
> > > > > > > > > >nuclear power plant and a coal fired generating plant..
>
>
> > > > > > > >Just for fun, let's imagine that [Mr. Lochner] would actually
> > > > > > > >to explain what exactly is so different about the turbine/gen[..]
>
> > > > > > > It's not just the "turbine/generators" that are "different", crayon..
>
> > > > > > > --As has been said of you before, you must live in a simple world..
>
>
> > > > > Yes, as expected, senile caveman over simplified the subject to
> > > > > absurd levels (eg reductio ad absurdium) in order to make a silly
> > > > > claim that makes sense to his malignant narcissism..
>
> > > > > >other than how the steam is generated, what exactly are these
> > > > > >significant differences [..]
>
> > > > > Oh, things like the "containment vessel", backup cooling systems
> > > > > that don't spill hazardous waste into the local environment, the
> > > > > control systems, little picky details like that..
>
> > > ><ROFL> that's all part of the steam generation process[..]
>
> > > *>LOL!<* What part of "nuclear" did you not comprehend?
>
>
> Similar, but not enough to support your over-simplifications..
>
> > > > > Any further discussion or education of your simple-mindedness
> > > > > will require another cup of coffee and billings for my time..
>
>
> > > >Run away[..]
>
> > > Yup, that's precisely what I expect you to do..
>
>
> Yeah, and don't forget to thump your hollow chest about how 'smart'
> you are.. It wouldn't be the same without that, hunh?
>
> > > --Anything else you'd like to pretend you know about?
>
>
> Nope, you're entirely clueless..
>
> --Not that anyone would actually care, but thanks for playing..
Good Lord...
I suppose this means we should replace all power plants with a million
little tea kettles, huh?
> ____________________________________________________________________
>
> Steven Canyon <G...@dog.soldiers> Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT
> <news:og8elu4eaudlftq93...@4ax.com>
>
> "any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."
> --
> "Coulomb's Law " Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
> that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
> --kicking hippies <stevencan...@yahoo.com>
> Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:28:01 -0800 (PST)
> Message-ID:
> 53150fee-bc34-40e3-912c-be62297c363b%4072g2000hsu.googlegroups.com
> --
> "Another note: It may come as a surprise to the loons, but other than
Steve
<ROFL> ...and which ones would those be, Milt?
I think we have another keeper here.....
>there is
>no "except for" here. HOW the steam is generated to run the turbine is
>the entire issue.
>
<LOL> Sooooo, just exactly what are the differences other than HOW
the steam is generated to run the turbine?
Why does nobody step forward and at least try to make a rebuttal?
Steve
Still no rebuttal? sorry Bluster and spit don't cut it..
Steve
Milt's IQ can't drop much.. I don't think it can go negative....
>Apparently thinks that, because the end result is steam turbines,
>well, nuclear and coal plants are the same. Well, then... it's
>settled, isn't it?
>
>(sits here and waits for the terrorists to start smuggling coal from
>the coal-fired plant, since it's basically the same as the uranium,
>right? Think I'll be waiting here long?)
>
>>
Still waiting for a rebuttal rather than all the hot air.. not steam,
but hot air...
Steve
<LOL> I'm waiting for an example of a nuclear plant that doesn't
run using steam..
....Not really expecting one though...
3975 Dead
That, or report to his probation officer.
3975 Dead
I suspect that part of his last plea bargain was an agreement not to
keep any more live gerbils.
Matt
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:55:47 -0800 (PST), Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 27, 2:58 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
>
> >> <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 27, 2:33 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:08:45 -0800 (PST), milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >On Feb 27, 12:07 pm, Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Feb 27, 9:38 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:46:52 -0800 (PST), Matt
>
> >> >> >> > <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > >On Feb 27, 8:22 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > >> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:11:01 -0800 (PST), milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >> > >> >Nuclear power plants are too expensive,
>
> >> >> >> > >> ...and yet most of European and Japanese electric customers are
> >> >> >> > >> supplied with power generated at nuclear plants. and I don't see
> >> >> >> > >> those customers complaining about electric prices..
>
> >> >> >> > >You don't listen too well, then.
>
> >> >> >> > >LONDON: Electricity prices could reach record highs in Europe as
> >> >> >> > >forecasters predict a second straight summer of soaring temperatures.
>
> >> >> >> > >"The chances are we will see significant increases in prices," said
> >> >> >> > >Kim Keats, head of the power and fuels group at ICF International, a
> >> >> >> > >consulting firm in London.
>
> >> >> >> > >The price of baseload electricity for next quarter in Germany, the
> >> >> >> > >biggest European market, has risen 27 percent from its low this year
> >> >> >> > >on Feb. 23 and traded Thursday at EURO 46.25, or $62.95, a megawatt-hour,
> >> >> >> > >according to GFI Group. Increased demand for electricity to power air-
> >> >> >> > >conditioners and refrigerators may send baseload, or around-the-clock,
> >> >> >> > >contracts as high as EURO 60 per megawatt-hour, said Olaf Ter Bille,
> >> >> >> > >senior energy trader at the MMT Energy Fund.
>
> >> >> >> > >And..
>
> >> >> >> > >International statistics for 1989 show that the average price for
> >> >> >> > >residential electricity in France was 11.5 cents per kilowatt hour,
> >> >> >> > >compared with 7.5 cents in the United States. The French energy recipe
>
> >> >> >> > Undocumented bullshit.. here's some facts...
>
> >> >> >> >http://www.uic.com.au/nip28.htm
>
> >> >> >> > "The cost of nuclear-generated electricity fell by 7% from 1998 to
> >> >> >> > 2001 and is now about EUR 3 cents/kWh"
>
> >> >> >> COST, Steve-o. That's how much it costs to MAKE the power, not how
> >> >> >> much it sells for. There's that little "initial startup cost" that
> >> >> >> kills you.
>
> >> >> Actually, it's the capital costs that have been a problem.. It takes
> >> >> a big chunk of money to build a base load power plant, but at least
> >> >> nowdays the Nuclear power capital costs have gotten cheaper while the
> >> >> fossil fuel base load plants capital costs have gotten more
> >> >> expensive... to the point where if you consider the cheaper fuel
> >> >> costs, the nukes are competitive and sometimes the better option..
>
> >> >> That's why you see so many nuclear plants being proposed
>
> >> >It is still considerably cheaper to build a coal or gas plant than a
> >> >nuclear
> >> >one. This could change, with economies of scale, but it certainly
> >> >isn't going
> >> >to in the short term. So, the initial cost is massive. That, in
> >> >itself, is not a
> >> >reason to avoid nuclear energy.
>
> >> Well, Dummy, you have to then factor in the cheaper fuel prices...
> >> that makes them competitive...
>
> >It always amazes me how simplistic the world is to you.
>
> In other words, poor Matt has no response to the facts..
No, I responded with what I thought. You really do think the world is
black and white,
which is rather scary. You also need to grow up and start reading what
people say,
instead of just looking for points to score and stupid remarks to
make.
>
> >> Do you really believe that the power company's would be looking to
> >> build them if they could do other things cheaper?
>
> >Yes, I'm sure they would. Were it not for little things like Three
> >Mile Island,
> >Trojan Nuclear Power Plant, Fort St Vrain, the Savannah River Plant...
>
> >Did you really not know any of this?
>
> Mostly stuff that was blown out of proportion..Did you really not know
> any of that?
Really. How was it "blown out of proportion"? The fact that we have
not had
a major malfunction of a nuclear power plant certainly doesn't mean we
won't.
Read the history of Rocky Flats, here in Colorado, for an excellent
example of
just how lucky we've gotten. That's not to say that regular power
plants can't
wipe out an entire town or city, by the way.
>
> >> >> Sorry, but you WILL be seeing new Nukes here before too long..
>
> >> >Where? This is a NIMBY problem of a large scale.
>
> >> No at all.. I'd sooner have a nuke near me than be downwind to a big
> >> coal plant.. no emissions you know...
>
> >Perhaps you would. However, most people would not. In this particular
> >case,
>
> I doubt that you are qualified to speak for most people...
Really. And what is it you think makes someone qualified to speak for
most people?
>
> >I agree with you, they are generally safer. But that doesn't change
> >people's
> >minds after Chernobyl and TMI.
>
> Comparing Chernobyl to US nukes is like comparing Russian automobiles
> to BMW's... and TMI is also obsolete....
No doubt. And yet, people still make the comparison.
>
> >> >> They have reached the point where they are now competitive with fossil
> >> >> plants..
>
> >> >I don't know if "competitive" is the right answer, and yesterday's
> >> >little disaster
> >> >in Florida didn't help much. Coal and gas plants rarely go off-line,
> >> >after all.
>
> >> <ROFL> bullshit... the problems were all on the electrical side..
> >> that would have tripped off any generator.. the tripping action
> >> occurs on the electrical equipment.. it doesn't even know that the
> >> plant is nuclear....
>
> >And yet, only the nuclear plants turned off. Why is that?
>
> They didn't turn off, they tripped off, dummy.. perhaps they weren't
> the only ones, perhaps they were the closest to the electric fault.
There is, of course, a huge difference between "tripped" and 'turned
off'.
Perhaps you can enlighten us to the difference? Why don't you start
with the
fact that nuclear power plants require cooling, and when there is no
power to
them, they can't cool. So, for safety, they shut down or "trip".
>
> >> and trust me when I say that coal and gas plants trip off all the
> >> time... It just doesn't make the news as much....
>
> >Really. Why don't you cite a few. Just for fun.
>
> Like I said, they don't make headlines.. The news media doesn't care
> The fact is that a great deal of generating unit trips are because of
> problems on the electric side which doesn't care about what turns the
> generator.
Of course.
>
> In any event, here's a list of outages.. do a search on the word
> "trip"and see for yourself.
Only you would try to search for a common word like trip and expect to
find
anything useful.
Matt
3975 Dead
You could probably make a pretty good bomb from coal dust....
3975 Dead
Even he couldn't possibly be that stupid.
Could he?
3975 Dead
Gosh, Milt, wouldn't all those whistles going off at once be a noise
pollution problem?
Steve
wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to describe the differences, other than
the steam generation process, between a nuclear plant and coal
plant..
Actually, I know that's not going to happen.... the leftist loons
don't have a clue....
....and the following, from Shook, speaks for itself.
"Besides the fact that not all nuclear plants run using steam,"
--Milt Shook 2/28/08
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/429db13c5b5caf48
Canyon note: I'm still waiting for an example of one....
Steve
ROTFL Every time Shook open his mouth, he doesn't just stick his
foot in it, he shits in it...
"Besides the fact that not all nuclear plants run using steam,"
--Milt Shook 2/28/08
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/429db13c5b5caf48
Canyon note: I'm still waiting for an example of one....
Steve
wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 07:48:38 -0800 (PST), milt....@gmail.com wrote:
Bluster and fume... all day long... and yet they say they're
ignoring me.....
...and still no rebuttal...
Steve
I read a lot of what people say... but I don't pay attention to much
of what you leftist loons say... except for the entertainment value..
>> >> Do you really believe that the power company's would be looking to
>> >> build them if they could do other things cheaper?
>>
>> >Yes, I'm sure they would. Were it not for little things like Three
>> >Mile Island,
>> >Trojan Nuclear Power Plant, Fort St Vrain, the Savannah River Plant...
>>
>> >Did you really not know any of this?
>>
>> Mostly stuff that was blown out of proportion..Did you really not know
>> any of that?
>
>Really. How was it "blown out of proportion"? The fact that we have
>not had
>a major malfunction of a nuclear power plant certainly doesn't mean we
>won't
Yeah, and the fact that the sky hasn'r fallen doesn't mean it won't
either.... right?
.
>Read the history of Rocky Flats, here in Colorado, for an excellent
>example of
>just how lucky we've gotten. That's not to say that regular power
>plants can't
>wipe out an entire town or city, by the way.
<LOL> ...as in the power plant that ate Chicago?
>> >> >> Sorry, but you WILL be seeing new Nukes here before too long..
>>
>> >> >Where? This is a NIMBY problem of a large scale.
>>
>> >> No at all.. I'd sooner have a nuke near me than be downwind to a big
>> >> coal plant.. no emissions you know...
>>
>> >Perhaps you would. However, most people would not. In this particular
>> >case,
>>
>> I doubt that you are qualified to speak for most people...
>
>Really. And what is it you think makes someone qualified to speak for
>most people?
I don't think anyone is, you poor loon...
>> >I agree with you, they are generally safer. But that doesn't change
>> >people's
>> >minds after Chernobyl and TMI.
>>
>> Comparing Chernobyl to US nukes is like comparing Russian automobiles
>> to BMW's... and TMI is also obsolete....
>
>No doubt. And yet, people still make the comparison.
Dumb people like you, perhaps..
Yep
>> In any event, here's a list of outages.. do a search on the word
>> "trip"and see for yourself.
>
>Only you would try to search for a common word like trip and expect to
>find
>anything useful.
<LOL> In fact, using that word in any one of the cites I showed would
provide plenty of evidence of units tripping
>Matt
milt....@gmail.com
> On Feb 27, 6:50 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:55:47 -0800 (PST), Matt
>
> > <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> > >On Feb 27, 2:58 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:47:29 -0800 (PST), Matt
>
> > >> <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> > >> >On Feb 27, 2:33 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >On Feb 27, 12:07 pm, Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >> On Feb 27, 9:38 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >> >> > On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:46:52 -0800 (PST), Matt
>
> > >> >> >> > <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >> > >On Feb 27, 8:22 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
writes. I sometimes come across responses to him, but that's the only
way I ever see him anymore. When he says crap such as there's no
difference between a coal-fired plant and a nuclear plant because they
both employ steam turbines, you just have to shake your head and walk
away, because he really can't see how stupid that is.
I'm still imagining terrorists infiltrating a coal mine and stealing
the coal, because we know that's exactly the same as fissionable
material, you know?
>
> > >> Do you really believe that the power company's would be looking to
> > >> build them if they could do other things cheaper?
>
> > >Yes, I'm sure they would. Were it not for little things like Three
> > >Mile Island,
> > >Trojan Nuclear Power Plant, Fort St Vrain, the Savannah River Plant...
>
> > >Did you really not know any of this?
>
> > Mostly stuff that was blown out of proportion..Did you really not know
> > any of that?
>
> Really. How was it "blown out of proportion"? The fact that we have
> not had
> a major malfunction of a nuclear power plant certainly doesn't mean we
> won't.
> Read the history of Rocky Flats, here in Colorado, for an excellent
> example of
> just how lucky we've gotten. That's not to say that regular power
> plants can't
> wipe out an entire town or city, by the way.
>
There is also the problem of having governments that are so far up the
asses of the companies that own these plants, that we'll never KNOW
when there's a goddamn accident. But even if there isn't, how long is
a sufficient time between accidents that could potentially wipe out
hundreds of thousands of people? And given that we can produce the
same amount of power more safely, and for the same price or cheaper,
what would be the point of such nonsense?
>
> > >> >> Sorry, but you WILL be seeing new Nukes here before too long..
>
> > >> >Where? This is a NIMBY problem of a large scale.
>
> > >> No at all.. I'd sooner have a nuke near me than be downwind to a big
> > >> coal plant.. no emissions you know...
>
> > >Perhaps you would. However, most people would not. In this particular
> > >case,
>
> > I doubt that you are qualified to speak for most people...
>
> Really. And what is it you think makes someone qualified to speak for
> most people?
>
He's speaking from his anus. It's not worth the brain cells to even
ask the question.
>
> > >I agree with you, they are generally safer. But that doesn't change
> > >people's
> > >minds after Chernobyl and TMI.
>
> > Comparing Chernobyl to US nukes is like comparing Russian automobiles
> > to BMW's... and TMI is also obsolete....
>
> No doubt. And yet, people still make the comparison.
>
>
Yeah, people who actually know a little more than shows up in a quick
Google search.
Right now, there is a huge nuke plant being permitted in Idaho. It'll
be 1600 MW, and take up 3300 acres. The preliminary cost estimates are
$4.5 billion, but it'll probably end up $10-12 billion before it's all
over, and that's BEFORE they generate one watt. Plus, it'll take 10-12
years to go online. Why do these idiots think it costs so much and
takes so long in the first place? It's because it's not like building
a coal or gas-fired plant. They like to quote the price of the
generation itself, as if none of the initial cost matters at all. But
the bottom line is, it's possible to build just as much generating
power in 1/3 the time by sidestepping nukes, and building an oil or
coal plant that can be easily converted to some other fuel or material
later, when something else comes along.
I'm not afraid of nuclear power, like many people. But it's expensive,
and certain governments (like the Bushies) have demonstrated an
unwillingness to do what's necessary to keep things secure. It's not
possible to wipe out hundreds of thousands with coal or oil...
>
>
> > >> >> They have reached the point where they are now competitive with fossil
> > >> >> plants..
>
> > >> >I don't know if "competitive" is the right answer, and yesterday's
> > >> >little disaster
> > >> >in Florida didn't help much. Coal and gas plants rarely go off-line,
> > >> >after all.
>
> > >> <ROFL> bullshit... the problems were all on the electrical side..
> > >> that would have tripped off any generator.. the tripping action
> > >> occurs on the electrical equipment.. it doesn't even know that the
> > >> plant is nuclear....
>
> > >And yet, only the nuclear plants turned off. Why is that?
>
> > They didn't turn off, they tripped off, dummy.. perhaps they weren't
> > the only ones, perhaps they were the closest to the electric fault.
>
> There is, of course, a huge difference between "tripped" and 'turned
> off'.
> Perhaps you can enlighten us to the difference? Why don't you start
> with the
> fact that nuclear power plants require cooling, and when there is no
> power to
> them, they can't cool. So, for safety, they shut down or "trip".
Jesus, is he actually posing this kind of argument now?
The plant SHUT DOWN!
There... I fixed it.
Kinda wonder how many fuses he goes through every year, though,
because he can't have a standard breaker box. I dunno about you, but
when the breaker's "tripped" the electricity "turns off."
>
>
>
> > >> and trust me when I say that coal and gas plants trip off all the
> > >> time... It just doesn't make the news as much....
>
> > >Really. Why don't you cite a few. Just for fun.
>
> > Like I said, they don't make headlines.. The news media doesn't care
> > The fact is that a great deal of generating unit trips are because of
> > problems on the electric side which doesn't care about what turns the
> > generator.
>
> Of course.
>
>
>
> > In any event, here's a list of outages.. do a search on the word
> > "trip"and see for yourself.
>
> Only you would try to search for a common word like trip and expect to
> find
> anything useful.
>
> Matt
Them Google scholars. Gotta loathe them, huh?
milt....@gmail.com
> pollution problem?
>
>
Damn... back to the drawing board, I guess.
steven...@yahoo.com
It's funny that Poor Milt cant respond to what I really said.....
which was:
It may come as a surprise to the loons, but other than
how the steam is generated, there's very little difference between a
nuclear power plant and a coal fired generating plant.."
But then, he, nor anyone else can refute it so they have to pretend
that I said something else....
That's the Leftist way...
steven...@yahoo.com
> Damn... back to the drawing board, I guess.
I guess so... see below:
Steve
<LOL> I'm waiting for an example of a nuclear plant that doesn't
run using steam..
So what do these miracle nuclear plants use to turn the generator,
Milt? or do they even have a generator? Do they stick the wires
into the fuel and convert it directly to electricity?
Tell us more, Milt....
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner replied to:
> >
> > 3975 Dead wrote:
- -->
> > > Kurt, just explain to that thing that when it is heated, water turns
> > > to steam and expands, and will escape from a container with enough
> > > force to turn a generating turbine.
> >
> > Oh, no.. He's the one claiming that nuclear power plants are
> > similar to coal-fired plants. Let's see how he supports that..
> >
> > > He'll gainsay it, of course, but he'll be the only one who doesn't
> > > notice that he's a complete asshole, and you'll have beaten him yet
> > > again.
> >
> > He's already gone silent, probably trying to google-scholar
> > his way out of the trap he laid for himself..
> >
>
You still have yet to substantiate your claim.. *>LOL!<*
--The burden of proof is on you..
____________________________________________________________________
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT
news:<og8elu4eaudlftq93...@4ax.com>
"any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."
--
"Coulomb's Law " Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
--kicking hippies <steven...@yahoo.com>
Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:28:01 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID:
53150fee-bc34-40e3-912c-be62297c363b%4072g2000hsu.googlegroups.com
--
"Another note: It may come as a surprise to the loons, but other than