On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 20:42:58 -0400, BAR wrote:


France didn't build each nuke plant from scratch like we did. They
weren't trying to provide a jobs program for engineers.

Careful, someone may call you a socialist. :-) France works differently
than we do. After the 1973 oil crisis, Prime Minister instituted a huge
nuclear build program, without public or parliamentary debate. That
wouldn't work here.

If you recall, our response to the oil crisis was Carter's "moral
equivalent of war" speech. Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush I, Clinton, all
have tried to address the energy problem. Maybe in another 30 to 40
years we'll actually do something.

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:14:57 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote:


When someone can successfully power a medium sized US city 24/7 using
solar and wind then I'll be impressed. Until then we're tied to oil,
coal, and natural gas because the environmental nutters are against
nuclear power.

It isn't environmental nutters, it is cost. Nuclear is expensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nu...ting_costs.png

On 9/12/2012 5:44 PM, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:14:57 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote:


When someone can successfully power a medium sized US city 24/7 using
solar and wind then I'll be impressed. Until then we're tied to oil,
coal, and natural gas because the environmental nutters are against
nuclear power.

It isn't environmental nutters, it is cost. Nuclear is expensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nu...ting_costs.png


Nuclear is expensive because of the environmental nutters??

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:31:43 -0400, JustWait wrote:

On 9/12/2012 5:44 PM, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:14:57 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote:


When someone can successfully power a medium sized US city 24/7 using
solar and wind then I'll be impressed. Until then we're tied to oil,
coal, and natural gas because the environmental nutters are against
nuclear power.

It isn't environmental nutters, it is cost. Nuclear is expensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nu...ting_costs.png


Nuclear is expensive because of the environmental nutters??

Of the 104 reactors now operating in the U.S., ground was broken on all
of them in 1974 or earlier. There wasn't a large environmental movement
pre-1974. Three Mile Island wasn't until 1979.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear..._United_States

In article , says...

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:31:43 -0400, JustWait wrote:

On 9/12/2012 5:44 PM, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:14:57 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote:


When someone can successfully power a medium sized US city 24/7 using
solar and wind then I'll be impressed. Until then we're tied to oil,
coal, and natural gas because the environmental nutters are against
nuclear power.

It isn't environmental nutters, it is cost. Nuclear is expensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nu...ting_costs.png


Nuclear is expensive because of the environmental nutters??

Of the 104 reactors now operating in the U.S., ground was broken on all
of them in 1974 or earlier. There wasn't a large environmental movement
pre-1974. Three Mile Island wasn't until 1979.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear..._United_States

Scotty can't comprehend anything that doesn't come from some FOX talking
head....

In article , says...

On 9/12/2012 5:44 PM, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:14:57 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote:


When someone can successfully power a medium sized US city 24/7 using
solar and wind then I'll be impressed. Until then we're tied to oil,
coal, and natural gas because the environmental nutters are against
nuclear power.

It isn't environmental nutters, it is cost. Nuclear is expensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nu...ting_costs.png


Nuclear is expensive because of the environmental nutters??

Can't read, huh?

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:44:42 +0000 (UTC), thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:14:57 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote:


When someone can successfully power a medium sized US city 24/7 using
solar and wind then I'll be impressed. Until then we're tied to oil,
coal, and natural gas because the environmental nutters are against
nuclear power.

It isn't environmental nutters, it is cost. Nuclear is expensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nu...ting_costs.png

===

At some point environmental, safety and cost all morph into one big
issue. Today's nuclear plants are safe 99.99999% of the time. It
turns out that is not enough however. There are now hundreds of
square miles of land in Japan and the former USSR that are totally
uninhabitable. There are additional thousands of people who will die
prematurely, and/or have their quality of life severely impacted.
Both of those accidents are flukes of course, but they are the flukes
that prove Murphy's law.

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:42:19 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:



At some point environmental, safety and cost all morph into one big
issue. Today's nuclear plants are safe 99.99999% of the time. It
turns out that is not enough however. There are now hundreds of
square miles of land in Japan and the former USSR that are totally
uninhabitable. There are additional thousands of people who will die
prematurely, and/or have their quality of life severely impacted. Both
of those accidents are flukes of course, but they are the flukes that
prove Murphy's law.


There are 3rd and 4th generation reactors now out there that solve many
of those problems. I think we are going to see much more nuclear in the
next decade or two, smaller plants with less capital investment on the
front end.

On 9/12/2012 7:08 PM, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:42:19 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:



At some point environmental, safety and cost all morph into one big
issue. Today's nuclear plants are safe 99.99999% of the time. It
turns out that is not enough however. There are now hundreds of
square miles of land in Japan and the former USSR that are totally
uninhabitable. There are additional thousands of people who will die
prematurely, and/or have their quality of life severely impacted. Both
of those accidents are flukes of course, but they are the flukes that
prove Murphy's law.


There are 3rd and 4th generation reactors now out there that solve many
of those problems. I think we are going to see much more nuclear in the
next decade or two, smaller plants with less capital investment on the
front end.


Maybe even micro (relatively speaking) plants that can be easily
isolated in an emergency... spread around more.

On 9/12/2012 3:42 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:44:42 +0000 (UTC), thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:14:57 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote:


When someone can successfully power a medium sized US city 24/7 using
solar and wind then I'll be impressed. Until then we're tied to oil,
coal, and natural gas because the environmental nutters are against
nuclear power.

It isn't environmental nutters, it is cost. Nuclear is expensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nu...ting_costs.png

===

At some point environmental, safety and cost all morph into one big
issue. Today's nuclear plants are safe 99.99999% of the time. It
turns out that is not enough however. There are now hundreds of
square miles of land in Japan and the former USSR that are totally
uninhabitable. There are additional thousands of people who will die
prematurely, and/or have their quality of life severely impacted.
Both of those accidents are flukes of course, but they are the flukes
that prove Murphy's law.


And they don't pay for insurance for damages they may cause.