Gee, look what happened to oil over the past 5 years!

[golfbum18]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-oil-boom-leaves-opec-111316495.html

[Frank Ketchum]

"golfbum18" <golf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:417fe009-7e0f-4d24...@q8g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-oil-boom-leaves-opec-111316495.html

This must come as a shock to you and the rest of the left wing. Your side
has for years been telling us there is no reason to go get our own oil
because we don't have enough to make a difference. Hmm, yet another entry
in the massive list of things you got wrong.

[MNMikeW]

drill baby drill!

[Horva...@net.net]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:30:19 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote
this crap:

>> This must come as a shock to you and the rest of the left wing. Your side
>> has for years been telling us there is no reason to go get our own oil
>> because we don't have enough to make a difference. Hmm, yet another entry
>> in the massive list of things you got wrong.
>>
>>
>drill baby drill!

Do you remember a few years ago when they said that if we started
drilling now, there would be no oil in the pipeline for ten years?
Apparently they think the oil companies are run by the government.

This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

[MNMikeW]

Hit $4 a gallon in MN today.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 11:01:42 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote

this crap:

>Horva...@net.net wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:30:19 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote
>> this crap:
>>
>>>> This must come as a shock to you and the rest of the left wing. Your side
>>>> has for years been telling us there is no reason to go get our own oil
>>>> because we don't have enough to make a difference. Hmm, yet another entry
>>>> in the massive list of things you got wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> drill baby drill!
>>
>> Do you remember a few years ago when they said that if we started
>> drilling now, there would be no oil in the pipeline for ten years?
>> Apparently they think the oil companies are run by the government.
>>
>>

>Hit $4 a gallon in MN today.

I that to think what it would be without the extra oil.

[Howard Brazee]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 08:32:56 -0400, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com>
wrote:

>This must come as a shock to you and the rest of the left wing. Your side
>has for years been telling us there is no reason to go get our own oil
>because we don't have enough to make a difference. Hmm, yet another entry
>in the massive list of things you got wrong.

I hadn't heard anybody say that particular claim.

--
Anybody who agrees with one side all of the time or disagrees with the
other side all of the time is equally guilty of letting others do
their thinking for them.

[Moderate]

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> Wrote in message:

> On Thu, 16 May 2013 08:32:56 -0400, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>>This must come as a shock to you and the rest of the left wing. Your side
>>has for years been telling us there is no reason to go get our own oil
>>because we don't have enough to make a difference. Hmm, yet another entry
>>in the massive list of things you got wrong.
>
> I hadn't heard anybody say that particular claim.
>

Good grief. You never seem to hear flawed leftist propaganda. You
must live in a vacuum.
--

[MNMikeW]

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_rn=12&gs_ri=psy-ab&gs_mss=not%20enought%20o&pq=not%20enought%20oil%20in%20america&cp=10&gs_id=34&xhr=t&q=not+enough+oil+in+america&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=not+enough+oil+in+america&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.46471029,d.Yms&fp=fa565b10f20254ee&biw=1313&bih=592&bs=1

[Alan Baker]

In article <kn3cj0$mrt$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

The perhaps you won't mine presenting an example of this alleged
"propaganda"...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

[Alan Baker]

In article <avkrc6...@mid.individual.net>,

Now point out ONE LINK that actually supports the claim you're trying to
make...

[jay birdsong]

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
news:alangbaker-EB2A7...@news.shawcable.net...

In article <kn3cj0$mrt$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
Moderate <no_spam@no_mail.com> wrote:

> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> Wrote in message:
> > On Thu, 16 May 2013 08:32:56 -0400, "Frank Ketchum"
> > <fr...@nospam.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>This must come as a shock to you and the rest of the left wing.
> >>Your side
> >>has for years been telling us there is no reason to go get our own
> >>oil
> >>because we don't have enough to make a difference. Hmm, yet
> >>another entry
> >>in the massive list of things you got wrong.
> >
> > I hadn't heard anybody say that particular claim.
> >
>
> Good grief. You never seem to hear flawed leftist propaganda. You
> must live in a vacuum.
> --

>The perhaps you won't mine presenting an example of this alleged
>"propaganda"...

Hmmmm.......... seems you're blowing up again, Diddler? What
happened? No Kiddies this week?

snip dumb cunt sig.

[Howard Brazee]

I know that the easiest place to look for flawed rightest propaganda
is on leftest web sites. And the easiest place to look for flawed
leftest propaganda is on rightest web sites.

But if leftists have been making that claim, they haven't publicized
it.

[Moderate]

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> Wrote in message:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 14:38:10 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
> <no_spam@no_mail.com> wrote:
>
>>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> Wrote in message:
>>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 08:32:56 -0400, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>This must come as a shock to you and the rest of the left wing. Your side
>>>>has for years been telling us there is no reason to go get our own oil
>>>>because we don't have enough to make a difference. Hmm, yet another entry
>>>>in the massive list of things you got wrong.
>>>
>>> I hadn't heard anybody say that particular claim.
>>>
>>
>>Good grief. You never seem to hear flawed leftist propaganda. You
>> must live in a vacuum.
>
> I know that the easiest place to look for flawed rightest propaganda
> is on leftest web sites. And the easiest place to look for flawed
> leftest propaganda is on rightest web sites.
>
> But if leftists have been making that claim, they haven't publicized
> it.
>

From now on your name is Hoover.
--

[Hollis2]

Frack baby frack. Most of the new oil comes from shale oil deposits in ND
and Montana.

The world will eventually run out of oil, but that time is long in the
future. I just hope that the AGW theorists are wrong. Because the world
will continue to use more and more fossil fuels and I can't see anything
that is going to stop it.

[Hollis2]

That's because most of the new oil is coming from private land and there's
no government around to screw things up.

[Frank Ketchum]

"Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:uvcg6ax...@news.ezprovider.com...

Nucular is the only viable option. But we can't tolerate that either so
fossil fuels it is.

[andrcom]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 8:20:42 AM UTC-4, Frank Ketchum

>
>
> Nucular is the only viable option. But we can't tolerate that either so
>
> fossil fuels it is.

What will they think of next? A NUCLEAR POWERED CAR?

[Frank Ketchum]

"andrcom" <And...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cb670751-776d-4751...@googlegroups.com...

No goofball nuclear power can be used to generate electricity. If the
environmentalists dream of an electric car that is practical ever happens
currently it will still be powered by fossil fuels because our electricity
is mainly from coal plants. Also nuclear power can be used to produce
hydrogen fuel cells if fuel cell technology becomes practical. Guess how
the energy stored in hydrogen fuel cells would be produced today? Fossil
fuels.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 08:20:42 -0400, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com>
wrote this crap:

Why is that? If it wasn't for nuclear power the entire planet would
be a cold hard rock, devoid of all life.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 08:39:35 -0400, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com>
wrote this crap:

>

Nuclear powered ships are made today, and at one time a nuclear
powered airplane was built. It's certainly within our ability to make
a nuclear powered train engine. It's probably within our engineering
skills to build a nuclear powered semi.

[Frank Ketchum]

<Horva...@net.net> wrote in message
news:9gacp85fhbqluvtr9...@4ax.com...

Ask the environmentalists that stand in the way of nuclear. I'm all for it.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 10:51:07 -0400, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com>
wrote:

Me too, but I'm puzzled over the statement that the planet would be
dead without it.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 09:57:45 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
crap:

>>>>>
>>>>> Frack baby frack. Most of the new oil comes from shale oil deposits in
>>>>> ND
>>>>> and Montana.
>>>>>
>>>>> The world will eventually run out of oil, but that time is long in the
>>>>> future. I just hope that the AGW theorists are wrong. Because the
>>>>> world
>>>>> will continue to use more and more fossil fuels and I can't see anything
>>>>> that is going to stop it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nucular is the only viable option. But we can't tolerate that either so
>>>>fossil fuels it is.
>>>>
>>> Why is that? If it wasn't for nuclear power the entire planet would
>>> be a cold hard rock, devoid of all life.
>>
>>Ask the environmentalists that stand in the way of nuclear. I'm all for it.
>>
>Me too, but I'm puzzled over the statement that the planet would be
>dead without it.

Go outside and look up. If there's no clouds you should easily see
what keeps the planet suitable for life.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 10:51:07 -0400, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com>
wrote this crap:

>>>

>>>Nucular is the only viable option. But we can't tolerate that either so
>>>fossil fuels it is.
>>>
>> Why is that? If it wasn't for nuclear power the entire planet would
>> be a cold hard rock, devoid of all life.
>
>Ask the environmentalists that stand in the way of nuclear. I'm all for it.
>

You would think that the greenies would be all for it. It's the
cleanest, safest and cheapest source of power that we have.

[Frank Ketchum]

<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:f9hcp89ullgaik4s1...@4ax.com...

Presumably he's talking about the naturally occurring decay of uranium in
the earth that provides the internal heat of the planet. That is what we
make happen much faster in a fission nuclear reactor. But perhaps I give
him too much credit.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

Although the sun is a nuclear fusion reactor that is generally
separated from what we think of a nuclear power for generation of
machinery, which is the gist of this issue. Ask Berkshire Hathaway.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11911544/1/solar-scores-a-big-win-over-nuclear.html

[Horva...@net.net]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 10:15:59 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this

crap:

>On Fri, 17 May 2013 11:04:05 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 May 2013 09:57:45 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
>>crap:
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Frack baby frack. Most of the new oil comes from shale oil deposits in
>>>>>>> ND
>>>>>>> and Montana.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The world will eventually run out of oil, but that time is long in the
>>>>>>> future. I just hope that the AGW theorists are wrong. Because the
>>>>>>> world
>>>>>>> will continue to use more and more fossil fuels and I can't see anything
>>>>>>> that is going to stop it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nucular is the only viable option. But we can't tolerate that either so
>>>>>>fossil fuels it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why is that? If it wasn't for nuclear power the entire planet would
>>>>> be a cold hard rock, devoid of all life.
>>>>
>>>>Ask the environmentalists that stand in the way of nuclear. I'm all for it.
>>>>
>>>Me too, but I'm puzzled over the statement that the planet would be
>>>dead without it.
>>
>>Go outside and look up. If there's no clouds you should easily see
>>what keeps the planet suitable for life.
>>
>Although the sun is a nuclear fusion reactor that is generally
>separated from what we think of a nuclear power for generation of
>machinery, which is the gist of this issue. Ask Berkshire Hathaway.

I don't give a rat's ass about Hathaway. Where do you think solar
power comes from? Where do you think wind power comes from? All life
on this planet is possible only with nuclear power.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 11:08:46 -0400, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com>

BZZZZT! Incorrect. I'm talking about the nuclear fusion power plant
in the center of the solar system. God has already provided us a safe
way of generating power. All we have to do is harness it on Earth.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

You're correct, except you fail to recognize what is generally meant
when the discussion involves nuclear power to energize machinery.
That's different than Solar power, which Berkshire Hathaway has proven
to be more economical.

But then you're a fool and we have to take that into account.

[John B.]

Environmentalists aren't blocking nuclear power. Power cos. don't
want to build nuclear plants b/c it's expensive and takes forever
and b/c there's a natural gas boom going on that provides a less
expensive alternative. I heard a power co. CEO say it would take
at least 10 yrs. to bring a new nuke plant on-line mostly b/c the
cos. that make reactor housing are backlogged with orders from
overseas.

[John B.]

Consider the source.

[Frank Ketchum]

<Horva...@net.net> wrote in message
news:aricp8piqijcueoef...@4ax.com...

In other words you are making the point that nearly all energy sources on
our planet actually come from a nuclear reaction. From solar power, wind
power, hydroelectric power and fossil fuels all really come from nuclear.
True enough. What percent of those in this group do you think understand
this?

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:19:01 -0400, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com>

I would hope all.

[Frank Ketchum]

"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:40662d4b-068d-4a9d...@googlegroups.com...

No, power companies haven't been able to get permits from the government to
build one since the 70s because of political pressure from the environmental
nutcase lobby.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:26:02 -0400, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com>
wrote:

Why would they want to build them? Here's a clip from the link that I
provided earlier.



Berkshire's costs are striking. Compared with a new nuclear power
plant, Antelope Valley is a bargain. On capital expense, operating
costs and levelized costs, solar is a better investment. Here are the
numbers:
?Nuclear: capex, $6 million per megawatt; production costs, $22 per
megawatt-hour.
?Solar: capex, $4 million per megawatt; production costs, $0 per
megawatt-hour

The complete article is at:
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11911544/1/solar-scores-a-big-win-over-nuclear.html

[Horva...@net.net]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 10:54:50 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
crap:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>Nucular is the only viable option. But we can't tolerate that either so
>>>>>>>>fossil fuels it is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why is that? If it wasn't for nuclear power the entire planet would
>>>>>>> be a cold hard rock, devoid of all life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ask the environmentalists that stand in the way of nuclear. I'm all for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Me too, but I'm puzzled over the statement that the planet would be
>>>>>dead without it.
>>>>
>>>>Go outside and look up. If there's no clouds you should easily see
>>>>what keeps the planet suitable for life.
>>>>
>>>Although the sun is a nuclear fusion reactor that is generally
>>>separated from what we think of a nuclear power for generation of
>>>machinery, which is the gist of this issue. Ask Berkshire Hathaway.
>>
>>I don't give a rat's ass about Hathaway. Where do you think solar
>>power comes from? Where do you think wind power comes from? All life
>>on this planet is possible only with nuclear power.
>>
>You're correct, except you fail to recognize what is generally meant
>when the discussion involves nuclear power to energize machinery.

I don't fail to recognize anything. I went to Kolledge

>That's different than Solar power, which Berkshire Hathaway has proven
>to be more economical.

Solar power is a waste. The solar panels cost more than the power you
can produce from them and they only have a life span of about 20
years. (estimated. We haven't had them for 20 years yet.)

>But then you're a fool and we have to take that into account.

You're a fool if you don't realize that nuclear fusion is a viable
power source with unlimited potential. It's been around for millions
of years. BOO-Yah!

[Horva...@net.net]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:19:01 -0400, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com>
wrote this crap:

>
>>>

>>>Presumably he's talking about the naturally occurring decay of uranium in
>>>the earth that provides the internal heat of the planet. That is what we
>>>make happen much faster in a fission nuclear reactor. But perhaps I give
>>>him too much credit.
>>>
>> BZZZZT! Incorrect. I'm talking about the nuclear fusion power plant
>> in the center of the solar system. God has already provided us a safe
>> way of generating power. All we have to do is harness it on Earth.
>
>In other words you are making the point that nearly all energy sources on
>our planet actually come from a nuclear reaction. From solar power, wind
>power, hydroelectric power and fossil fuels all really come from nuclear.
>True enough. What percent of those in this group do you think understand
>this?
>

Since all of this group consists of golfers and they know how grass
grows, I would say that 100% of this group realizes that the sun is
the ultimate source of life and power on this planet. Without the sun
we would be on a hard rocky dead ball just drifting through space.

[Hollis2]

Now I see why Warren Buffet's been sucking up to Obama all these years.
There must be more subsidies going into this plant than Tiger has
girlfriends, starting with the manufacture of the solar panels. Of
course, California's laws on how much electricity the state must use from
renewable sources means they have to build this plant no matter how much
it costs. The only one who will come out ahead is Buffet.

[MNMikeW]

Same goes for refineries.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

A supposition not supported by anything other than speculation.

>Of course, California's laws on how much electricity the state must use from
>renewable sources means they have to build this plant no matter how much
>it costs.

Read the article Hollis. They're cheaper to build and operate than
nuclear plants.

> The only one who will come out ahead is Buffet.

Another supposition not supported by facts.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 08:58:37 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
<john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:

>> >>
>>
>> > Why is that? If it wasn't for nuclear power the entire planet would
>>
>> > be a cold hard rock, devoid of all life.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ask the environmentalists that stand in the way of nuclear. I'm all for it.
>
>Environmentalists aren't blocking nuclear power. Power cos. don't
>want to build nuclear plants b/c it's expensive and takes forever
>and b/c there's a natural gas boom going on that provides a less
>expensive alternative. I heard a power co. CEO say it would take
>at least 10 yrs. to bring a new nuke plant on-line mostly b/c the
>cos. that make reactor housing are backlogged with orders from
>overseas.

That is horseshit. Which overseas nations are building more nuclear
power plants? Iran? Japan? France? And they don't build their own?

[Horva...@net.net]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 11:38:56 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
crap:

>>

>>No, power companies haven't been able to get permits from the government to
>>build one since the 70s because of political pressure from the environmental
>>nutcase lobby.
>>
>Why would they want to build them? Here's a clip from the link that I
>provided earlier.
>
>
>
>Berkshire's costs are striking. Compared with a new nuclear power
>plant, Antelope Valley is a bargain. On capital expense, operating
>costs and levelized costs, solar is a better investment. Here are the
>numbers:
>?Nuclear: capex, $6 million per megawatt; production costs, $22 per
>megawatt-hour.
>?Solar: capex, $4 million per megawatt; production costs, $0 per
>megawatt-hour

These figures are nonsense. The average price of electricity is about
12 cents per kilowatt hour.

http://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state.php

That would be $120 per megawatt hour.

And for God's sake, WHY is production of solar power at $0 ? Close to
my house the gubmint put up a solar farm that should be able to
provide power to 60 houses. It cost $25 million to build. Doing the
math it would have to sell power at $.15 per KW/hr for 25 years to pay
for itself, but the solar panels will only last 20 years and have to
be replaced. Net loss of $5 million in taxpayer money. (That's if
you're getting 15 cents per. The cost here is 8 cents.) So it's
really a net waste of 15 million dollars. And that's probably if the
sun shines 24 hours a day.

And here's the worst part. That wasteful solar farm was put on
gubmint property that now needs to expand. They want to close the
golf course next door and annex it for expansion when they just wasted
hundreds of acres for the solar farm. Do these people take crazy
pills?


Don't drink and drive. Unless you have a good cup holder.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

What a buffoon. You sit there in Detroit dicking around on Usenet and
think that you have more information and knowledge than one of the
larger companies dealing with power?

Sputter on, you're a complete idiot, and your numbers, and ego, aren't
to be believed.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:02:58 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
crap:

>>

>>Now I see why Warren Buffet's been sucking up to Obama all these years.
>>There must be more subsidies going into this plant than Tiger has
>>girlfriends, starting with the manufacture of the solar panels.
>
>A supposition not supported by anything other than speculation.
>
>
>
>>Of course, California's laws on how much electricity the state must use from
>>renewable sources means they have to build this plant no matter how much
>>it costs.
>
>Read the article Hollis. They're cheaper to build and operate than
>nuclear plants.

Bull Shit. A solar farm close to my house cost $25 million to build.
It will provide enough power to run 60 houses. I'm sure the electric
bill on 60 houses is much less than that. And they don't even figger
in the maintenance. Cutting the grass, cleaning off the bird poop,
replacing old or damaged panels, etc.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:37:44 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this

I posted a link from a company that collected information on the cost
of electricity on a state to state basis. I believe in getting
information from different sources.

>Sputter on, you're a complete idiot, and your numbers, and ego, aren't
>to be believed.

It's just simple math. You don't have to be Mensa to understand that
solar power is a loser.

[John B.]

That is completely false. There are more than 30 active permits
for nuke plant construction extant right now. The environmental
community doesn't have 10% of the money that its corporate opponents
like the American Petroleum Institute have. It does not have and has
never had the power to cripple an industry as you allege. Some of the
big environmental groups don't even oppose nuclear power. They want the
waste disposal issue solved before any new plants are built.

[John B.]

France gets 70% of its power from nuclear. China, S. Korea and Russia are building nuke plants. S. Korea is building one in the UAE.

It's a lot easier to cry "horseshit" than it is to enlighten yourself, isn't it?

Perhaps if you're not too lazy, you'll read this:
http://world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Plans-For-New-Reactors-Worldwide/#.UZaEl7XCaSo

[bkn...@conramp.net]

LOL. You've already made a fool of yourself by arguing with a major
power company's figures. Keep it up, very amusing.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 15:05:00 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:

>>Sputter on, you're a complete idiot, and your numbers, and ego, aren't
>>to be believed.
>
>It's just simple math. You don't have to be Mensa to understand that
>solar power is a loser.
>

LOL. You certainly aren't Mensa qualified if you think you know more
than Warren Buffet.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:25:17 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
<john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:

>> >>
>>
>>

>never had the power to cripple an industry as you allege. Some of the
>big environmental groups don't even oppose nuclear power. They want the
>waste disposal issue solved before any new plants are built.

That's an issue that can easily be resolved. It's a political issue
not a technical issue.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:33:00 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
<john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:

>>

>> >cos. that make reactor housing are backlogged with orders from
>>
>> >overseas.
>>
>>
>>
>> That is horseshit. Which overseas nations are building more nuclear
>>
>> power plants? Iran? Japan? France? And they don't build their own?
>>
>>
>France gets 70% of its power from nuclear.

Are they building more?

> China, S. Korea and Russia are building nuke plants.

China and Russia build their own and don't use our reactor housings.

> S. Korea is building one in the UAE.

So what? That's one power plant. That doesn't stop us from building
more. Is this your backlog of power plants? You have to do better.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:45:55 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
crap:

I just have to know more than you. Which is easy since you can't
understand simple arithmetic.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

You've made it patently obvious here many times that you don't know
shit.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:43:25 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this

I just gave you the gubmint figgers. 25 million to build a solar farm
to run 60 houses. A real loser.

25 mill for 60 houses comes to 400,000 per house. For 20 years that's
20 thou per house per year. 20 thou for 12 months is 1666 a month. I
don't know what your electric bill is but I will bet a beer that it's
less than 1666 a month.

I don't know what the average electric bill is because I wired my
meter to run backwards and I get a check from the power company every
quarter.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 16:08:48 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:


>I don't know what the average electric bill is because I wired my
>meter to run backwards and I get a check from the power company every
>quarter.
>
>

Admitting that you're a thief doesn't speak well of you, even if it
is a joke.

[MNMikeW]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=first-new-nuclear-reactor-in-us-since-1978-approved

[Horva...@net.net]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 15:15:46 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
crap:

Everybody does it. You can find the plans on
www.runyourelectricmeterbackwards.com

Besides, who's stealing? They run the power through my house so I'm
entitled to charge them rent.

[Hollis2]

What complete rubbish. Read the fact on the different ways to produce
electricity. Go down to see how the figures come out for the French who,
unlike the US, know how to run a nuclear power program. Solar power is
six times the cost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Want more?

Here is a comparison of the cost of solar in Germany compared to the most
expensive nuclear plant being built in Finland.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112743794

> > The only one who will come out ahead is Buffet.
>
> Another supposition not supported by facts.

So you think that Buffet's been kissing Obama's ass for nothing?

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 18:17:54 -0700, "Hollis2"

Who cares about Germany or Finland. Read the comparisons on the link
I provided.

>
>http://www.democraticunderground.com/112743794
>
>> > The only one who will come out ahead is Buffet.
>>
>> Another supposition not supported by facts.
>
>So you think that Buffet's been kissing Obama's ass for nothing?

Right, as if he needs to do that. He's so in need of money.

I just think you're full of shit.

[Carbon]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 08:20:42 -0400, Frank Ketchum wrote:
> "Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:uvcg6ax...@news.ezprovider.com...
>> On May 16 2013 10:30 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
>>> Frank Ketchum wrote:
>>>> "golfbum18" <golf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:417fe009-7e0f-4d24...@q8g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-oil-boom-leaves-opec-111316495.html
>>>>
>>>> This must come as a shock to you and the rest of the left wing. Your
>>>> side has for years been telling us there is no reason to go get our
>>>> own oil because we don't have enough to make a difference. Hmm, yet
>>>> another entry in the massive list of things you got wrong.
>>>
>>> drill baby drill!
>>

>> Frack baby frack. Most of the new oil comes from shale oil deposits in
>> ND and Montana.
>>
>> The world will eventually run out of oil, but that time is long in the
>> future. I just hope that the AGW theorists are wrong. Because the
>> world will continue to use more and more fossil fuels and I can't see
>> anything that is going to stop it.
>
> Nucular is the only viable option. But we can't tolerate that either so
> fossil fuels it is.

The new sodium-cooled reactor designs can run on spent fuel from larger
older generation water-cooled reactors. These smaller reactors would not
only be a great way to use up all that spent fuel, but would also be cost
effective to build and safer than reactors in use today.

It is unfortunate that the public is so terrified of nuclear energy.

http://goo.gl/sHsVD

[Hollis2]

What part of the chart comparing electric production prices on the chart
I provided didn't you understand. The idea that solar power is
competitive with nuclear, or any other way to make electricity, is simply
absurd. It's not even in the ballpark.

> >
> >http://www.democraticunderground.com/112743794
> >
> >> > The only one who will come out ahead is Buffet.
> >>
> >> Another supposition not supported by facts.
> >
> >So you think that Buffet's been kissing Obama's ass for nothing?
>
> Right, as if he needs to do that. He's so in need of money.
>
> I just think you're full of shit.

I didn't know that Buffet was into manufacturing solar panels. I thought
that the reason he was kissing Obama's ass was because he was in the
health insurance business. Now I see that he has another way to exploit
make money from Obama.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 00:52:49 -0700, "Hollis2"
<a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>I didn't know that Buffet was into manufacturing solar panels. I thought
>that the reason he was kissing Obama's ass was because he was in the
>health insurance business. Now I see that he has another way to exploit
>make money from Obama.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[BAR]

In article <cb670751-776d-4751...@googlegroups.com>, And...@aol.com says...
>
> On Friday, May 17, 2013 8:20:42 AM UTC-4, Frank Ketchum

> >
> >
> > Nucular is the only viable option. But we can't tolerate that either so
> >
> > fossil fuels it is.
>

> What will they think of next? A NUCLEAR POWERED CAR?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon

http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/2012/10/23/chinas-nuclear-powered-car/

http://inhabitat.com/laser-power-systems-is-developing-cars-fueled-by-nuclear-power/

[BAR]

In article <40662d4b-068d-4a9d...@googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com
says...
>

> On Friday, May 17, 2013 10:51:07 AM UTC-4, Frank Ketchum wrote:
> > <Horva...@net.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:9gacp85fhbqluvtr9...@4ax.com...
> >

> > > On Fri, 17 May 2013 08:20:42 -0400, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com>
> >
> > > wrote this crap:

> >
> > >
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >>"Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> >
> > >>news:uvcg6ax...@news.ezprovider.com...
> >
> > >>> On May 16 2013 10:30 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>>> Frank Ketchum wrote:
> >
> > >>>> > "golfbum18" <golf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > >>>> > news:417fe009-7e0f-4d24...@q8g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > >>>> >> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-oil-boom-leaves-opec-111316495.html
> >
> > >>>> >
> >
> > >>>> > This must come as a shock to you and the rest of the left wing. Your
> >
> > >>>> > side
> >
> > >>>> > has for years been telling us there is no reason to go get our own
> >
> > >>>> > oil
> >
> > >>>> > because we don't have enough to make a difference. Hmm, yet another
> >
> > >>>> > entry
> >
> > >>>> > in the massive list of things you got wrong.
> >
> > >>>> >
> >
> > >>>> >
> >
> > >>>> drill baby drill!
> >
> > >>>
> >

> > >>> Frack baby frack. Most of the new oil comes from shale oil deposits in
> >
> > >>> ND
> >
> > >>> and Montana.
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>> The world will eventually run out of oil, but that time is long in the
> >
> > >>> future. I just hope that the AGW theorists are wrong. Because the
> >
> > >>> world
> >
> > >>> will continue to use more and more fossil fuels and I can't see anything
> >
> > >>> that is going to stop it.
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>
> >

> > >>Nucular is the only viable option. But we can't tolerate that either so
> >
> > >>fossil fuels it is.
> >
> > >>
> >

> > > Why is that? If it wasn't for nuclear power the entire planet would
> >
> > > be a cold hard rock, devoid of all life.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ask the environmentalists that stand in the way of nuclear. I'm all for it.
>

> Environmentalists aren't blocking nuclear power. Power cos. don't
> want to build nuclear plants b/c it's expensive and takes forever
> and b/c there's a natural gas boom going on that provides a less
> expensive alternative. I heard a power co. CEO say it would take
> at least 10 yrs. to bring a new nuke plant on-line mostly b/c the

> cos. that make reactor housing are backlogged with orders from
> overseas.

Why is building nuke plants costly and a long term endeavor?

It can be done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

The 10 year argument is getting to be stale. If we had drilled baby drilled 20 or 30 years
ago in the federal lands then we wouldn't have cared about Kuwait and Iraq.

[BAR]

In article <77ncp85f860cnmeib...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...
>
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:26:02 -0400, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com>

> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:40662d4b-068d-4a9d...@googlegroups.com...

> >No, power companies haven't been able to get permits from the government to
> >build one since the 70s because of political pressure from the environmental
> >nutcase lobby.
> >

> Why would they want to build them? Here's a clip from the link that I
> provided earlier.
>
>
>
> Berkshire's costs are striking. Compared with a new nuclear power
> plant, Antelope Valley is a bargain. On capital expense, operating
> costs and levelized costs, solar is a better investment. Here are the
> numbers:
> ?Nuclear: capex, $6 million per megawatt; production costs, $22 per
> megawatt-hour.
> ?Solar: capex, $4 million per megawatt; production costs, $0 per
> megawatt-hour
>

> The complete article is at:
> http://www.thestreet.com/story/11911544/1/solar-scores-a-big-win-over-nuclear.html

How do you get solar to produce energy when the sun goes down? This is the problem with solar
and wind all along. Half the time they are not producing energy.

[Frank Ketchum]

"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2013.05...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...

Agreed. Actually part of the problem is that there are federal laws in
place that prevent recyling of spent nuclear fuel rods. Europe has this
technology. The problem of what to do with the waste is 99% self created.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:07:58 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote this
crap:

>> >
>> > > Why is that? If it wasn't for nuclear power the entire planet would
>> >
>> > > be a cold hard rock, devoid of all life.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Ask the environmentalists that stand in the way of nuclear. I'm all for it.
>>
>> Environmentalists aren't blocking nuclear power. Power cos. don't
>> want to build nuclear plants b/c it's expensive and takes forever
>> and b/c there's a natural gas boom going on that provides a less
>> expensive alternative. I heard a power co. CEO say it would take
>> at least 10 yrs. to bring a new nuke plant on-line mostly b/c the
>> cos. that make reactor housing are backlogged with orders from
>> overseas.
>
>Why is building nuke plants costly and a long term endeavor?

Because the greenies make you fill out a mountain of paperwork, make
you sit through environmental hearings and tie you up in court for an
extended period.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:09:02 -0400, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com>
wrote this crap:

>
>>>>
>>>> The world will eventually run out of oil, but that time is long in the
>>>> future. I just hope that the AGW theorists are wrong. Because the
>>>> world will continue to use more and more fossil fuels and I can't see
>>>> anything that is going to stop it.
>>>
>>> Nucular is the only viable option. But we can't tolerate that either so
>>> fossil fuels it is.
>>
>> The new sodium-cooled reactor designs can run on spent fuel from larger
>> older generation water-cooled reactors. These smaller reactors would not
>> only be a great way to use up all that spent fuel, but would also be cost
>> effective to build and safer than reactors in use today.
>>
>> It is unfortunate that the public is so terrified of nuclear energy.
>>
>> http://goo.gl/sHsVD
>
>Agreed. Actually part of the problem is that there are federal laws in
>place that prevent recyling of spent nuclear fuel rods. Europe has this
>technology. The problem of what to do with the waste is 99% self created.
>

Ding Ding Ding We Have A Winner! Exactly correct. We have the
technology to reprocess any of the spent uranium or the so-called,
"waste." But you can thank Jimmie Carter, who had a nuclear
engineering degree, for signing executive orders banning reprocessing
of nuclear fuel.

We can build reactors that actually produce more fissionable material
than they use up, thus giving us an unlimited source of clean, cheap,
safe power. You would think everyone would be in favor of this,
wouldn't you?

[Horva...@net.net]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:11:28 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote this
crap:

>> Berkshire's costs are striking. Compared with a new nuclear power
>> plant, Antelope Valley is a bargain. On capital expense, operating
>> costs and levelized costs, solar is a better investment. Here are the
>> numbers:
>> ?Nuclear: capex, $6 million per megawatt; production costs, $22 per
>> megawatt-hour.
>> ?Solar: capex, $4 million per megawatt; production costs, $0 per
>> megawatt-hour
>>

>How do you get solar to produce energy when the sun goes
>down? This is the problem with solar
>and wind all along. Half the time they are not producing energy.

How do you get them to produce power in the winter when they are
covered with snow? I suggested electric heaters to melt the snow and
they would be powered by the solar panels that weren't working. :)

[Hollis2]

Anyone who knows about electric power generation knows that wind and solar
can never be more than an auxiliary source of power. Base load must be
available 24/7 365.

[Hollis2]

The French do a great job running their nukes. When they decide to build
a reactor, the build it. They don't spend 10 years in and out of court
before the construction begins. They build the same reactor over and over
again and once they decide to build a plant, you know that it will go
commercial as soon as it is ready.

Nuclear power, if managed right is by far the cheapest and best way to
produce electricity. But in the US today, no one in their right mind
would invest in a nuke plant without loan guarantees, with interest, from
the government.

I always think of Shoreham on Long Island. They built a 6 billion dollar
plant, did low power testing and then it could not get a license to go
commercial.

Idiots.

[Don Kirkman]

And the appropriate response to that is to develop auxiliary sources
as much as feasible to reduce the need for our ultimately
unsustainable water, fossil, and nuclear sources. It's concern for
the future as well as the present need, and it's not an either-or
paradigm.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

[Hollis2]

The US has enough coal, at current usage levels, to last around 250 years.
There's enough natural gas to last over a century even if they don't find
any more and the current extraction technology doesn't improve. Nuclear
energy is finite, but there's enough fuel around to last for millions of
years.

[John B.]

Why would one of the world's richest people
want to milk Obama for money?

[John B.]

For reasons that should be self-evident to anyone with a 3-digit
IQ.

[John B.]

That is complete horseshit, as I've already explained to you.

[John B.]

On Saturday, May 18, 2013 10:48:26 AM UTC-4, Horva...@net.net wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:11:28 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote this
>
> crap:
>
>
>
> >> Berkshire's costs are striking. Compared with a new nuclear power
>
> >> plant, Antelope Valley is a bargain. On capital expense, operating
>
> >> costs and levelized costs, solar is a better investment. Here are the
>
> >> numbers:
>
> >> ?Nuclear: capex, $6 million per megawatt; production costs, $22 per
>
> >> megawatt-hour.
>
> >> ?Solar: capex, $4 million per megawatt; production costs, $0 per
>
> >> megawatt-hour
>
> >>
>
> >How do you get solar to produce energy when the sun goes
>
> >down? This is the problem with solar
>
> >and wind all along. Half the time they are not producing energy.
>
>
>
> How do you get them to produce power in the winter when they are
>
> covered with snow?

By putting them in places where it doesn't snow.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 19:03:36 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
<john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:

>>
>> >Why is building nuke plants costly and a long term endeavor?
>>
>> Because the greenies make you fill out a mountain of paperwork, make
>> you sit through environmental hearings and tie you up in court for an
>> extended period.
>>
>>
>That is complete horseshit, as I've already explained to you.

You explained that S Korea was building a plant in UAE and it caused a
backlog of all plants.

Utter garbage.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 19:05:02 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
<john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:

>On Saturday, May 18, 2013 10:48:26 AM UTC-4, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:11:28 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote this
>>
>> crap:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Berkshire's costs are striking. Compared with a new nuclear power
>>
>> >> plant, Antelope Valley is a bargain. On capital expense, operating
>>
>> >> costs and levelized costs, solar is a better investment. Here are the
>>
>> >> numbers:
>>
>> >> ?Nuclear: capex, $6 million per megawatt; production costs, $22 per
>>
>> >> megawatt-hour.
>>
>> >> ?Solar: capex, $4 million per megawatt; production costs, $0 per
>>
>> >> megawatt-hour
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >How do you get solar to produce energy when the sun goes
>>
>> >down? This is the problem with solar
>>
>> >and wind all along. Half the time they are not producing energy.
>>
>>
>>
>> How do you get them to produce power in the winter when they are
>>
>> covered with snow?
>
>By putting them in places where it doesn't snow.

Does it snow up your ass?

[Don Kirkman]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 16:26:07 -0700, "Hollis2"

The country is nearly 250 years old (excluding the 150 years as
colonies}. So we've burned at least halfway through the coal
resources allotted to this part of our continent, and the rate of
depletion has steadily increased.

The first usable natural gas was mined in 1821, so we've been using it
for 192 years, again at steadily increased rates, and we have 100
years worth left **if we don't keep using more and more**.

Yes, nuclear energy is finite, but its exhaustion is astronomically
farther in the future than the 100 years of natural gas and 250 years
of coal. We're talking ten generations of Americans for gas and
twelve to fifteen or so for coal.

When our fuel resources go, we go.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

[Hollis2]

Actually, on a personal level, Buffet doesn't care about money. But he
does care about BH and will do anything he can to improve its fortunes A
bit of crony capitalism is just the thing to keep BH stock going up.

[BAR]

In article <5db322d5-4849-45aa...@googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com
says...

Then your two digit IQ is incapable of enumerating them.

[BAR]

In article <06455d55-289f-45c3...@googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com
says...

Where is your explanation?

[John B.]

That is NOT what I said. I said there was a lot of nuke plant
construction going on around the world, the result being that there
is a waiting list for reactor housing. The S. Korea project
in the UAE was an example, You are incredibly dense.

[John B.]

Look for it. I'm not your baby-sitter.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 15:28:21 -0700 (PDT), "John B."

<john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:

>On Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:12:30 AM UTC-4, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 19:03:36 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
>>
>> <john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>>
>>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Why is building nuke plants costly and a long term endeavor?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Because the greenies make you fill out a mountain of paperwork, make
>>
>> >> you sit through environmental hearings and tie you up in court for an
>>
>> >> extended period.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >That is complete horseshit, as I've already explained to you.
>>
>>
>>
>> You explained that S Korea was building a plant in UAE and it caused a
>>
>> backlog of all plants.
>>
>>
>>
>> Utter garbage.
>>
>>
>That is NOT what I said. I said there was a lot of nuke plant
>construction going on around the world, the result being that there
>is a waiting list for reactor housing. The S. Korea project
>in the UAE was an example, You are incredibly dense.

Then be more specific. You only named one plant being built by South
Korea. That doesn't cause a backlog. Name some other power plants
being built.

[John B.]

Are you so dumb and inept that you can't find that information
on your own?

http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/worldstatistics

[bkn...@conramp.net]

Rhetorical question. You answered it already.
>
>http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/worldstatistics

[Horva...@net.net]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 17:18:11 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
>>

>> >That is NOT what I said. I said there was a lot of nuke plant
>>
>> >construction going on around the world, the result being that there
>>
>> >is a waiting list for reactor housing. The S. Korea project
>>
>> >in the UAE was an example, You are incredibly dense.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then be more specific. You only named one plant being built by South
>>
>> Korea. That doesn't cause a backlog. Name some other power plants
>>
>> being built.
>>
>Are you so dumb and inept that you can't find that information
>on your own?

Nope. That's your job.

>http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/worldstatistics

Most of the nuclear power plants under construction are in China,
Russia, France, or the US. Leave those out and there's about five
others being built. That's hardly enough to cause a backlog. China
is building most of them. We should be able to build more.

[MNMikeW]

That's how they become one of the world's richest. They always milk
people for money.

[MNMikeW]

Keystone.

[John B.]

>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I didn't know that Buffet was into manufacturing solar panels. I thought
>
> >>
>
> >> that the reason he was kissing Obama's ass was because he was in the
>
> >>
>
> >> health insurance business. Now I see that he has another way to exploit
>
> >>
>
> >> make money from Obama.
>
> >
>
> > Why would one of the world's richest people
>
> > want to milk Obama for money?
>
> >
>
> That's how they become one of the world's richest. They always milk
>
> people for money.

These are the people you have revered as "job creators."

[John B.]

As you note, there are plants under construction in the US.
That contradicts your earlier premise that there were none
because the environmentalists wouldn't allow it.

[John B.]

Obama stopped Keystone, not the environmental community.

[MNMikeW]

The environmental community has been quite vocal in their displeasure
with the Keystone project.

[MNMikeW]

And yes, as a byproduct, they do create a lot of jobs.

[BAR]

In article <f492eee1-0962-475c...@googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com
says...

When were their licenses to be built granted and when will they be granted licenses to
operate?

[la...@pivotforpower.com]

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 5:32:56 AM UTC-7, Frank Ketchum wrote:
> "golfbum18" <golf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:417fe009-7e0f-4d24...@q8g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-oil-boom-leaves-opec-111316495.html
>
>
>
> This must come as a shock to you and the rest of the left wing. Your side
>
> has for years been telling us there is no reason to go get our own oil
>
> because we don't have enough to make a difference. Hmm, yet another entry
>
> in the massive list of things you got wrong.

Yeah, and when did the liberals quit blaming Obama for the gasoline prices that are keeping many of them unemployed? Obama and his moronic EPA have PURPOSEFULLY kept oil and gasoline prices high in order to force people to use solar and buy batter-powered cars.

Gasoline would be down to $2 under Romney by now.

Larry

[BAR]

In article <1ef01da1-2cf8-45bc...@googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com
says...

Why did Obama stop Keystone? It's not like we don't have the ability to transfer fuel safely
allo across the USA, Canada and Mexico.

http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/united_states_pipelines_map.jpg

http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/united_states_pipelines.html