wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:09:24 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:

I didn't know the U.S. government was in the nuclear power plant building
industry. I'm quite liberal in my views, and I'm all for nuclear power.
Funny how I can do that, huh? I don't goose step to any party.
The Federal Government is in the Non building nuclear power plant
business. The regulations make it so.
Just where would you geniuses store all the spent radioactive materials
generated by these plants for the next 10 thousand years??


In Dick Cheney's bunker?

In the 1940 we made a concentrated effort to develop nuclear energy and
did it in about 4 years. We developed new process to separate uranium
isotopes to improve that energy source. In the past 40 years we have
spent trillions of dollars to develop thousands of years old
technologies to get new energy. (increase the gear ratios in cars to get
better gas mileage, try to convince people that wind energy abandon over
a century ago because of its unreliability, etc. )

If the government had gotten behind a program to extract the energy out
of nuclear waste rather than bury it, we would have a clean, reliable,
continuously available, energy source with no concern about storing the
waste as there would be none.

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:18:12 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:


If the government had gotten behind a program to extract the energy out
of nuclear waste rather than bury it, we would have a clean, reliable,
continuously available, energy source with no concern about storing the
waste as there would be none.

The government? I thought "Free Market" was the Conservative mantra.

thunder wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:18:12 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:


If the government had gotten behind a program to extract the energy out
of nuclear waste rather than bury it, we would have a clean, reliable,
continuously available, energy source with no concern about storing the
waste as there would be none.

The government? I thought "Free Market" was the Conservative mantra.
The program to recover the energy from nuclear waste will require
significant expenditure for the research and development. The only
organization with that kind of money is the government. With nuclear
energy it is basically a simple separation process to get the energy
components from nuclear waste. The engineering process will cost.

For the billions of dollars and significant effort that the government
spent in the last 40 years killing and avoiding nuclear energy, we could
have had a recovery process and had no energy problem today. Yet the
government is continuing to bury its head in the sand and promoting the
gimmicky sources of electricity like windmills, and other fanciful ideas
that will not work in the long run.

Do you resent the government spending money for cancer research? This
is an example of a major research project, that is beyond the scope of
private industry. While there have been some progress in this very
complex system, it is still not understood today.

I don't have to ask I know you are against space research, but this is
an example of a government program that has done good. There is not one
segment of society, today, that is not using something that came out of
that research. My wife and thousands of other people would be blind
today if the government had not spent research money developing lasers,
and the systems to guide (target) them.

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:31:10 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:


For the billions of dollars and significant effort that the government
spent in the last 40 years killing and avoiding nuclear energy, we could
have had a recovery process and had no energy problem today. Yet the
government is continuing to bury its head in the sand and promoting the
gimmicky sources of electricity like windmills, and other fanciful ideas
that will not work in the long run.

Oh please, the government hasn't killed nuclear energy, the economics of
nuclear energy killed it. Nuclear energy, if you include the capital
costs, is expensive. However, with carbon sequestration and other "clean
coal" costs, nuclear energy is becoming cost competitive. You do know,
31 new nuclear plants are in the pipeline, don't you? Doesn't say much
for your theory that the government is killing nuclear energy, does it?

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-lice...iles/expected-
new-rx-applications.pdf

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:31:10 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:


For the billions of dollars and significant effort that the government
spent in the last 40 years killing and avoiding nuclear energy, we could
have had a recovery process and had no energy problem today. Yet the
government is continuing to bury its head in the sand and promoting the
gimmicky sources of electricity like windmills, and other fanciful ideas
that will not work in the long run.

Oh please, the government hasn't killed nuclear energy, the economics of
nuclear energy killed it. Nuclear energy, if you include the capital
costs, is expensive. However, with carbon sequestration and other "clean
coal" costs, nuclear energy is becoming cost competitive. You do know,
31 new nuclear plants are in the pipeline, don't you? Doesn't say much
for your theory that the government is killing nuclear energy, does it?

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-lice...iles/expected-
new-rx-applications.pdf

The capitol costs are out of whack because of the government rules. 15-20
years to get all the approvals and build. Then you have to get a license to
run the plant. Can not get a license until after construction is finished.
One of the killers for Seabrook (i think that is the one). Cumo opposed the
license and the rate payers are still paying for a finished nuke plant that
never operated. Also a reason rates are inflated with nuclear.

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:26:51 -0700, Calif Bill wrote:


The capitol costs are out of whack because of the government rules.
15-20 years to get all the approvals and build. Then you have to get a
license to run the plant. Can not get a license until after
construction is finished. One of the killers for Seabrook (i think that
is the one). Cumo opposed the license and the rate payers are still
paying for a finished nuke plant that never operated. Also a reason
rates are inflated with nuclear.

Seabrook is in New Hampshire. There were protests, but at least one of
it's reactors is operational. Shoreham was the plant you are thinking
of. It was built on Long Island, but never used. For what it's worth,
the government approval process has been streamlined, somewhat, but
frankly, if *any* project needs government oversight, it's the building
and operation of nuclear power plants.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:26:51 -0700, Calif Bill wrote:


The capitol costs are out of whack because of the government rules.
15-20 years to get all the approvals and build. Then you have to get a
license to run the plant. Can not get a license until after
construction is finished. One of the killers for Seabrook (i think that
is the one). Cumo opposed the license and the rate payers are still
paying for a finished nuke plant that never operated. Also a reason
rates are inflated with nuclear.

Seabrook is in New Hampshire. There were protests, but at least one of
it's reactors is operational. Shoreham was the plant you are thinking
of. It was built on Long Island, but never used. For what it's worth,
the government approval process has been streamlined, somewhat, but
frankly, if *any* project needs government oversight, it's the building
and operation of nuclear power plants.

There is government oversight and then there are 200 different governmental
agencies with conflicting rules.

thunder wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:26:51 -0700, Calif Bill wrote:


The capitol costs are out of whack because of the government rules.
15-20 years to get all the approvals and build. Then you have to get a
license to run the plant. Can not get a license until after
construction is finished. One of the killers for Seabrook (i think that
is the one). Cumo opposed the license and the rate payers are still
paying for a finished nuke plant that never operated. Also a reason
rates are inflated with nuclear.

Seabrook is in New Hampshire. There were protests, but at least one of
it's reactors is operational. Shoreham was the plant you are thinking
of. It was built on Long Island, but never used. For what it's worth,
the government approval process has been streamlined, somewhat, but
frankly, if *any* project needs government oversight, it's the building
and operation of nuclear power plants.

No one has said there should be no regulations, only reasonable
regulations the same as any other industry that handles toxic,
flammable, or hazardous materials, To have the things we have to day
there are many companies handling these materials daily.

I believe I read that the French can permit a nuclear plant, and have it
in operation in 5 years. I know a chemical plant that uses several
hundred thousand gallons of Benzene, IPA,Toluene and other solvents can
be permitted and in operation in about three years. There is no excuse
for taking 10 to 20 years for a nuclear power plant as it does in the US.

One of the biggest jokes I know of is the people who consider the
pharmaceutical industry, with several tons of Ethylene oxide (a
compressed gas used for sterilization) as safe industry, and protest
against the chemical company with a couple of hundred gallons of
solvent. Personally if it goes I will take the solvent, as that
magnitude of compressed gas would level the plant and surrounded area if
it exploded.