Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Keith Nuttle wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Just John II wrote:
On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

J. Leo wrote:
"But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising
temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat
to
the national interest.

If the United States does not lead the world in reducing
fossil-fuel
consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents
of
this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political
and
possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to
address."

One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not
Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all
these
global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA?

And, suppose no one of consequence follows.

Full article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th

Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of
binary thinking.
If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually
believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a
global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There
are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant.

Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent
global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics.
I agree with this post.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary
thinking.
So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly
believe it's really happening????

http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html

http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/

There are some people who believe the only long term economical
solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in
Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several
new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can
build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to
kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and
sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is
the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. )

The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who
continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear
energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to
be in response to global warming gives no significant support for
nuclear energy.

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.
They NEED to be regulated.

Yes, but the regulations prevent building. When there are 1-200 different
agencies that have to give approval, and then the enviro lawsuits without
merit. These all lead to uneconomical plants.



No they don't. Georgia Power is building one right now! And there are at
least two in Florida being built, and more on the drawing board.

"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Keith Nuttle wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Just John II wrote:
On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

J. Leo wrote:
"But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s
rising
temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct
threat to
the national interest.

If the United States does not lead the world in reducing
fossil-fuel
consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases,
proponents of
this view say, a series of global environmental, social,
political and
possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have
to
address."

One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why
not
Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all
these
global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA?

And, suppose no one of consequence follows.

Full article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th

Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of
binary thinking.
If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually
believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create
a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power.
There are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant.

Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent
global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics.
I agree with this post.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of
binary thinking.
So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly
believe it's really happening????

http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html

http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/

There are some people who believe the only long term economical
solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in
Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several
new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can
build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to
kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and
sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that
is the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear
plant. )

The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who
continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear
energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to
be in response to global warming gives no significant support for
nuclear energy.

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.
They NEED to be regulated.

Yes, but the regulations prevent building. When there are 1-200
different agencies that have to give approval, and then the enviro
lawsuits without merit. These all lead to uneconomical plants.

No they don't. Georgia Power is building one right now! And there are at
least two in Florida being built, and more on the drawing board.


They may have a better license structure in Georgia and Florida. But lots
of the cost of nuke is the permiting process.

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.

Don White wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Keith Nuttle wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Just John II wrote:
On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

J. Leo wrote:
"But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising
temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat
to
the national interest.

If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel
consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents
of
this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political
and
possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to
address."

One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not
Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these
global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA?

And, suppose no one of consequence follows.

Full article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th

Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary
thinking.
If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually
believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a
global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There
are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant.

Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent
global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics.
I agree with this post.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary
thinking.
So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe
it's really happening????

http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html

http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/

There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution
for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern
Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new
additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build
they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the
nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes
in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the
cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. )

The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who
continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear
energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be
in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear
energy.

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??



Halifax can't get any worse.

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


"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Keith Nuttle wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Just John II wrote:
On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

J. Leo wrote:
"But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising
temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat
to
the national interest.

If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel
consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents
of
this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political
and
possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to
address."

One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not
Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these
global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA?

And, suppose no one of consequence follows.

Full article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th

Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary
thinking.
If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually
believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a
global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There
are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant.

Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent
global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics.

I agree with this post.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary
thinking.

So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly believe
it's really happening????

http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html

http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/


There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution
for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern
Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new
additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build
they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the
nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes
in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the
cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. )

The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who
continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear
energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be
in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear
energy.


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??


Hey genius, you folks are the ones saying we're all going to drown in
this century from global warming.

In 10 thousand years, we could probably figure out what to do with
what little waste actually comes from today's nuclear power
technology. Do some reading.

Or, get back on the tit and stfu.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:19:45 -0400, NotNow wrote:

CalifBill wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Keith Nuttle wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Just John II wrote:
On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

J. Leo wrote:
"But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising
temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat
to
the national interest.

If the United States does not lead the world in reducing
fossil-fuel
consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents
of
this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political
and
possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to
address."

One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not
Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all
these
global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA?

And, suppose no one of consequence follows.

Full article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th

Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of
binary thinking.
If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually
believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a
global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There
are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant.

Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent
global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics.
I agree with this post.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary
thinking.
So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly
believe it's really happening????

http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html

http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/

There are some people who believe the only long term economical
solution for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in
Eastern Carolina has also started the permit process to build several
new additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can
build they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to
kill the nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and
sailing lakes in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is
the part of the cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. )

The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who
continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear
energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to
be in response to global warming gives no significant support for
nuclear energy.

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??


Halifax.

How much waste do you think they have to store?


He's dumb. Doesn't understand the concept apparently. He's probably
thinking that a nuke plant spits out spent rods like a Wile E. Coyote
fireworks factory!

I agree with this post.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:42:53 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Just John II wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:39:17 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Keith Nuttle wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Just John II wrote:
On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

J. Leo wrote:
"But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising
temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to
the national interest.

If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel
consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of
this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and
possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to
address."

One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why not
Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all these
global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA?

And, suppose no one of consequence follows.

Full article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th


Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of
binary thinking.
If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually
believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a
global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There
are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant.

Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent
global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics.
I agree with this post.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary
thinking.
So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly
believe it's really happening????

http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html

http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/

There are some people who believe the only long term economical solution
for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern
Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new
additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build
they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill the
nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing lakes
in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of the
cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. )

The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who
continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear
energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to be
in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear
energy.

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.

Now just convince the liberals in power to get on the bandwagon. It's
*really* hard to think they take manmade global warming seriously when
they don't give a high priority to the best treatment available.

Makes it sound like they just want your money.
--
John H


And I suppose that the conservative politicians DON'T want my money?

For nuclear power, certainly.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

"Just John II" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:09:24 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Keith Nuttle wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Just John II wrote:
On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:26:52 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

J. Leo wrote:
"But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising
temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct
threat
to
the national interest.

If the United States does not lead the world in reducing
fossil-fuel
consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents
of
this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political
and
possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have
to
address."

One must wonder why the United States must be the 'leader'. Why
not
Germany, or France, or even Canada? Does the prevention of all
these
global crises depend solely on the leadership of the USA?

And, suppose no one of consequence follows.

Full article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th

Oh wait, John Kerry is involved. Now I understand.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of
binary
thinking.
If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually
believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a
global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. There
are no green house gases from a nuclear power plant.

Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent
global warming I will accept it for what it is, politics.

I agree with this post.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary
thinking.

So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly
believe
it's really happening????

http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-102043.html

http://www.altdotenergy.com/2009/01/...t-for-florida/


There are some people who believe the only long term economical
solution
for the energy deficiency is nuclear power. Duke Power in Eastern
Carolina has also started the permit process to build several new
additions to existing nuclear plants. However before they can build
they must negotiate the many regulations that were designed to kill
the
nuclear industry. (On topic: One of the best fishing and sailing
lakes
in the Raleigh area is the 4000 acre Harris lake that is the part of
the
cooling system for the Sharon Harris nuclear plant. )

The THEY I was talking about are obama, pelosi, gore and other who
continual say we have global warming but will not support the nuclear
energy industry. Even the Cap and trade tax bill which is suppose to
be
in response to global warming gives no significant support for nuclear
energy.


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??


Hey genius, you folks are the ones saying we're all going to drown in
this century from global warming.

In 10 thousand years, we could probably figure out what to do with
what little waste actually comes from today's nuclear power
technology. Do some reading.

Or, get back on the tit and stfu.
--
John H


In your case, it would be 'get back on the dick and stfu'.