"RCE" wrote in message
...

"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.

Really, I was up that way this past summer and somebody, my mother, told me
it was off-line.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"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.

Really, I was up that way this past summer and somebody, my mother, told
me it was off-line.



It may have been shut down for routine maintenance or refueling. The
Pilgrim Plant in Plymouth, MA has to be shut down every 2 years for
refueling. The Seabrook Station is owned, believe it or not, by Florida
Power and Light. One of our former Florida neighbors (and Mrs.E.'s horse
riding buddy) is a VP in FPL. She travels to Seabrook on a regular basis to
see what's happening, I guess.

My next door neighbor here in MA is an engineer at the Plymouth plant. I
asked him why nuclear powered aircraft carriers which are powered for life
with the initial fueling can last for 40 years, yet a nuke power plant has
to be refueled every couple of years. The answer is the quality or purity
of the uranium fuel. Power plants use fuel that is only about 2.5 percent
of something. Nuke Navy ship's fuel is in the high 90 percent range.

RCE

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

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?

What a surprise - in the face of fact you revert to hysterical
hypotheticals.

If we're lucky yours will be the next boat Greenpeace bombs.

Idiot. PG&E **wanted** to build one 75 miles from the San Andreas fault
about 25 years ago. Idea crushed. What friggin' world are YOU living in?

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

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.

So you'd rather write your checks to the Bin Laden clan?

Let's see...you wrote this at 9:26 PM. Cocktails hadn't worn off yet? What
percentage of this country's electricity comes from oil-fueled power plants?

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 05:18:51 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


Idiot. PG&E **wanted** to build one 75 miles from the San Andreas fault
about 25 years ago. Idea crushed. What friggin' world are YOU living in?

Interestingly, a Japanese court just shut down Japan's newest nuclear
plant for the very same reason.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4839970.stm

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:16:07 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:


We don't need more nukes - we need a comprehensive domestic energy policy
that disallows this kind of abuse of the system to occur.

Do we even have a comprehensive domestic energy policy? I'm not overly
nuclear adverse. It provides 20% of our electrical needs, now, with some
100 odd plants. I find it mildly amusing, that the lack of new plants is
blamed on "envirofreaks", when the most obvious reasons are economic.

http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb138.htm

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 06:39:35 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 05:18:51 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


Idiot. PG&E **wanted** to build one 75 miles from the San Andreas fault
about 25 years ago. Idea crushed. What friggin' world are YOU living in?

Interestingly, a Japanese court just shut down Japan's newest nuclear
plant for the very same reason.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4839970.stm

We've got to get real about energy needs - in particular electricity
transmission.

We've got a brandy new, three gas-turbine power plant down in
Killingly which was built by PG&E as an investment during the hey day
of power "deregulation". As PG&E went bankrupt, the banks took it
over and they only run it two days a week - in theory because natural
gas prices are too high.

As designed, all three turbines can make up to $185,000 each per day
on $485,000 total operating costs. $555,000 (approx) made above and
beyond what it costs to operate the plant even at these elevated gas
prices per day.

Per day.

Obviously they run the plant to just maintain costs. The banks who
hold the property claim they are losing money.

Letting banks run anything but banks is goofy. There's a foreclosed house
down the street from me. The bank can't even figure out how to keep the lawn
mowed.

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


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

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.

So you'd rather write your checks to the Bin Laden clan?

Let's see...you wrote this at 9:26 PM. Cocktails hadn't worn off yet?
What percentage of this country's electricity comes from oil-fueled
power plants?

Who's talking about electricity, nimrod? Check the ****ing TITLE of the
****ING thread.

Oh, and where are your answers to the questions from the other poster
about what YOU would to solve the global energy crisis? Still festering
in your middle back pocket, I'd reason.

I've already presented some workable ideas here in the past. You weren't
around. Briefly, my first move would be to strongarm the car makers. Most
(not all) people who buy an SUV do so for reasons related only to their size
& shape, not their power train. Mommies want the safety or roominess of the
boxy vehicle. They have no need for a power train that eats so much fuel.
They couldn't even describe the power train and how it's different from that
of a sedan. The product needs to be changed so it meets two of the buyers'
needs, without addressing the needs of buyers who do not exist.

Guess what? Ford seems to be doing it.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

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


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

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.

So you'd rather write your checks to the Bin Laden clan?

Let's see...you wrote this at 9:26 PM. Cocktails hadn't worn off yet?
What percentage of this country's electricity comes from oil-fueled
power plants?

Who's talking about electricity, nimrod? Check the ****ing TITLE of the
****ING thread.

Oh, and where are your answers to the questions from the other poster
about what YOU would to solve the global energy crisis? Still festering
in your middle back pocket, I'd reason.

I've already presented some workable ideas here in the past. You weren't
around. Briefly, my first move would be to strongarm the car makers. Most
(not all) people who buy an SUV do so for reasons related only to their
size & shape, not their power train. Mommies want the safety or roominess
of the boxy vehicle. They have no need for a power train that eats so much
fuel. They couldn't even describe the power train and how it's different
from that of a sedan. The product needs to be changed so it meets two of
the buyers' needs, without addressing the needs of buyers who do not
exist.

Guess what? Ford seems to be doing it.

That's not a plan it is at best a desire to control behavior and dictate
needs to others.

With the projected increase of automobiles, specifically the gas fueled
ones, around the entire world how will this reduce the CO2 and other bad
emissions form automobiles. Oh, accepting the Kyoto Protocols is not a valid
answer to the question becasue it is a wealth re-distribution plan under the
guise of a global energy "plan."

The people of this world are not going to take a giant technological or
convienece leap backwards. Your solutions have to solve the current and
forseeable future energy needs.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

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


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

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.

So you'd rather write your checks to the Bin Laden clan?

Let's see...you wrote this at 9:26 PM. Cocktails hadn't worn off yet?
What percentage of this country's electricity comes from oil-fueled
power plants?

Who's talking about electricity, nimrod? Check the ****ing TITLE of the
****ING thread.

Oh, and where are your answers to the questions from the other poster
about what YOU would to solve the global energy crisis? Still festering
in your middle back pocket, I'd reason.

I've already presented some workable ideas here in the past. You weren't
around. Briefly, my first move would be to strongarm the car makers. Most
(not all) people who buy an SUV do so for reasons related only to their
size & shape, not their power train. Mommies want the safety or roominess
of the boxy vehicle. They have no need for a power train that eats so
much fuel. They couldn't even describe the power train and how it's
different from that of a sedan. The product needs to be changed so it
meets two of the buyers' needs, without addressing the needs of buyers
who do not exist.

Guess what? Ford seems to be doing it.

That's not a plan it is at best a desire to control behavior and dictate
needs to others.

With the projected increase of automobiles, specifically the gas fueled
ones, around the entire world how will this reduce the CO2 and other bad
emissions form automobiles. Oh, accepting the Kyoto Protocols is not a
valid answer to the question becasue it is a wealth re-distribution plan
under the guise of a global energy "plan."

The people of this world are not going to take a giant technological or
convienece leap backwards. Your solutions have to solve the current and
forseeable future energy needs.



Ford's development of a hybrid SUV is an attempt to control behavior? Please
explain this conclusion. They'll still be selling the "regular" kind, for
people who actually need a truck-style power train, but sales of those will
be reduced to levels they were at 30 years ago, when they were mostly
purchased by people who needed the 4WD and the gear ratio.

Don't get mired in that paragraph. Explain your conclusion.