Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
 

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:30:55 GMT, Fred Dehl
wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...


There hasn't been a new nuclear plant in the US in over 30 years.

Why not?

Envirofreaks.

Wrong. No applications since 1973.... until 2003 and now three plants
are being considered under "Early Site Permits."

Personally, I'm really unimpressed. I pay two different electric
bills. Coal generated power is $06.7337/kWh and nuclear generated
power is $09.054/kWh. I'm not enthused enough with technology to pay
an extra 35%, well, just because. As an added bonus, I can worry
about terrorism (airport is less than two miles from the reactor) or
accidental nuclear disaster.

As an added incentive, in case of disaster and in order to enhance my
sense of security, I (and everybody else) have to drive *towards* the
nuclear plant (within a couple of miles) to exit the island from a
single bridge.

Not only am I a pragmatist, I can remember Three Mile Island.... and
all of their assurances that nothing serious was wrong, even as
radioactive steam was escaping and the core reached 5000 degrees...

In fact, as I rethink this.... it is likely that power companies have
not, for 30 years, wanted to face the possibility of another 1 billion
plus dollar cleanup. Now, with a new and younger generation that
didn't face the economic reality of that most uniquely human trait...
mistakes, perhaps they will try the same thing and expect a different
result. I think Einstein called that insanity!

I was just reading that as a result of the Chernobyl accident, there is
still soil in Great Britain that's too far gone for livestock to graze on.
So much for NOYB and his "nuke 'em all" erectile dysfunction remedy.

Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
 

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...



There hasn't been a new nuclear plant in the US in over 30 years.

Why not?

Envirofreaks.


In the 1970s, Long Island Lighting Company began construction of a nuclear
power plant in Shoreham. They claimed that if there was a meltdown, there
really wouldn't be a problem evacuating anyone who was at risk. They
purchased a number of local officials to make sure all the reviews & permits
went smoothly. At the time, the Long Island Expressway was one long traffic
jam for almost its entire length, even in the middle of the night. Opponents
of the plan pointed out that evacuation would be impossible. The project's
paid supporters (who were later shamed out of office) said that boats would
be one solution.

To make a long story short, the project was halted, never to be touched
again. Would you say its opponents were freaks? Take a good look at a map of
Long Island before you respond:
http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?ad...1 &name=&qty=

Zoom out to be sure you understand.



Where was the reactor that spewed radiation back in 1978/1979??

Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...



There hasn't been a new nuclear plant in the US in over 30 years.

Why not?

Envirofreaks.


In the 1970s, Long Island Lighting Company began construction of a
nuclear power plant in Shoreham. They claimed that if there was a
meltdown, there really wouldn't be a problem evacuating anyone who was at
risk. They purchased a number of local officials to make sure all the
reviews & permits went smoothly. At the time, the Long Island Expressway
was one long traffic jam for almost its entire length, even in the middle
of the night. Opponents of the plan pointed out that evacuation would be
impossible. The project's paid supporters (who were later shamed out of
office) said that boats would be one solution.

To make a long story short, the project was halted, never to be touched
again. Would you say its opponents were freaks? Take a good look at a map
of Long Island before you respond:
http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?ad...1 &name=&qty=

Zoom out to be sure you understand.

Where was the reactor that spewed radiation back in 1978/1979??

Pennsylvania. Three Mile Island.

Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
 

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...


There hasn't been a new nuclear plant in the US in over 30 years.

Why not?

Envirofreaks.

In the 1970s, Long Island Lighting Company began construction of a
nuclear power plant in Shoreham. They claimed that if there was a
meltdown, there really wouldn't be a problem evacuating anyone who was
at risk. They purchased a number of local officials to make sure all
the reviews & permits went smoothly. At the time, the Long Island
Expressway was one long traffic jam for almost its entire length, even
in the middle of the night. Opponents of the plan pointed out that
evacuation would be impossible. The project's paid supporters (who
were later shamed out of office) said that boats would be one
solution.

To make a long story short, the project was halted, never to be
touched again. Would you say its opponents were freaks? Take a good
look at a map of Long Island before you respond:
http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?ad...ountry=us&new=
1&name=&qty=


Charlotte Observer, March 17, Page D1, regarding Duke Energy's proposal to
build a nuclear plant:


Environmental group Greenpeace is opposed to all new nuclear power plants,
said Lisa Finaldi, who is campaigns director for Greenpeace U.S. and is
based in Raleigh.
"It's a top priority for Greenpeace in the world, not just the U.S.," she
said.

To review:

You:

- found ONE incident
- from THIRTY YEARS AGO
- about ONE plant.

I:

- quoted the campaigns director of an envirofreaks group
- from LAST WEEK
- about ALL nuclear power plants EVERYWHERE in the world.

Not even a fair fight.

Sometimes these envirofreaks are right. How about building them dangerously
close to earthquake faults?

Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
 

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
wrote in
oups.com:

I'd order only 17 boats, proclaim a "shortage", and
demand a premium price from each buyer as I let each one know they
were just darn lucky to be able to buy a boat at all. If I jack the
price up high enough, the profits on those 17 boats would exceed the
profits realized on 25 boats sold at competitive prices. However, in
the real world where there is actual competition, my business plan
to create a false shortage would fail. Somebody selling another boat
across town would realize "Gould is driving away prospects with his
high prices, so instead of the 25 boats *we* normally order in a
year this year we'll order 33. We may have to discount them a little
to be sure we don't get stuck with a lot of inventory in the
fall...." That's how the system is supposed to work

Yes. Thank-you for exposing the fallacy of "predatory pricing".

Following from that I must conclude you're a big supporter of
Wal-Mart.

but the oil companies seem to be in collusion rather
than competition these days.

The problem is that the oil co's are all buying the same raw material
from the same producers and therefore ALL of their prices are going
to rise and fall in tandem. This looks like collusion.

Obviously the solution is to increase the number of producers, and
have them under US control rather than beholden to the instability
and hostility of foreign regions. That means, at a MINIMUM, offshore
and ANWR.

ANWR would barely make a dent. Even the oil companies have stated
this.

If you prefer no dent at all to any dent, you're an envirofreak.

A dent is nice, but sometimes the cost is too high.

Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...


There hasn't been a new nuclear plant in the US in over 30 years.

Why not?

Envirofreaks.

In the 1970s, Long Island Lighting Company began construction of a nuclear
power plant in Shoreham. They claimed that if there was a meltdown, there
really wouldn't be a problem evacuating anyone who was at risk. They
purchased a number of local officials to make sure all the reviews &
permits went smoothly. At the time, the Long Island Expressway was one
long traffic jam for almost its entire length, even in the middle of the
night. Opponents of the plan pointed out that evacuation would be
impossible. The project's paid supporters (who were later shamed out of
office) said that boats would be one solution.

To make a long story short, the project was halted, never to be touched
again. Would you say its opponents were freaks? Take a good look at a map
of Long Island before you respond:
http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?ad...1 &name=&qty=

Zoom out to be sure you understand.

You are talking about one nuclear plant. Why haven't we built others? Why
hasn't Seabrook come on line.

What is the alternative to nuclear plants? ANWR!

Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
wrote in
oups.com:

I'd order only 17 boats, proclaim a "shortage", and
demand a premium price from each buyer as I let each one know they
were just darn lucky to be able to buy a boat at all. If I jack the
price up high enough, the profits on those 17 boats would exceed the
profits realized on 25 boats sold at competitive prices. However, in
the real world where there is actual competition, my business plan
to create a false shortage would fail. Somebody selling another boat
across town would realize "Gould is driving away prospects with his
high prices, so instead of the 25 boats *we* normally order in a
year this year we'll order 33. We may have to discount them a little
to be sure we don't get stuck with a lot of inventory in the
fall...." That's how the system is supposed to work

Yes. Thank-you for exposing the fallacy of "predatory pricing".

Following from that I must conclude you're a big supporter of
Wal-Mart.

but the oil companies seem to be in collusion rather
than competition these days.

The problem is that the oil co's are all buying the same raw material
from the same producers and therefore ALL of their prices are going
to rise and fall in tandem. This looks like collusion.

Obviously the solution is to increase the number of producers, and
have them under US control rather than beholden to the instability
and hostility of foreign regions. That means, at a MINIMUM, offshore
and ANWR.

ANWR would barely make a dent. Even the oil companies have stated
this.

If you prefer no dent at all to any dent, you're an envirofreak.

A dent is nice, but sometimes the cost is too high.

What is your solution to the worlds energy problems? And yes, you have to
address it as a global problem.

Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
 

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...


You are talking about one nuclear plant. Why haven't we built others? Why
hasn't Seabrook come on line.

What is the alternative to nuclear plants? ANWR!



Seabrook has been on-line since 1990.

RCE

Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
 

RCE wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...


You are talking about one nuclear plant. Why haven't we built others? Why
hasn't Seabrook come on line.

What is the alternative to nuclear plants? ANWR!




Seabrook has been on-line since 1990.

RCE


Don't mind Bert.
He's always a dollar short & a day late.

Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...
RCE wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...


You are talking about one nuclear plant. Why haven't we built others? Why
hasn't Seabrook come on line.

What is the alternative to nuclear plants? ANWR!




Seabrook has been on-line since 1990.

RCE
Don't mind Bert.
He's always a dollar short & a day late.

He may be confusing the second reactor that it was originally supposed to
have. It got too expensive trying to get the permits and licenses, so they
flushed the second reactor plan. It is currently operating on one reactor.

RCE