varusword75 wrote:
That's all you had to say.
Awww... you and Gbaji are made for each other.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Barack Obama will win the 2012 election
Barack Obama will win the 2012 electionFollow
Awww... you and Gbaji are made for each other.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Hey Varus, if the government made the nuclear plants themselves, would you hail it as a success or more signs of the Obama administration taking over private business?
Sounds like there are about 30 in the works. Building a nuclear plant involves a ton of site research first, a ton of permitting and testing second, funding and material acquisition and finally building the thing and then getting it online.
Look here to see where they're going.
Look here to see where they're going.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,
Did I say the govn should build them? I know you can't read for sh*t but lately you've really digressed.
Did I say the govn should build them? I know you can't read for sh*t but lately you've really digressed.
What's with the flip-flopping?
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Elinda wrote:
Sounds like there are about 30 in the works. Building a nuclear plant involves a ton of site research first, a ton of permitting and testing second, funding and material acquisition and finally building the thing and then getting it online.
Look here to see where they're going.
Look here to see where they're going.
When they break ground on the first one, I'll reconsider my skepticism.
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam
Sedao
Sedao
varusword75 wrote:
phil, elinda, and locked know there's literally a mountain of govn red tape they're just being obtuse. They also know Obama could streamline the process.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
varusword75 wrote:
Kastigar,
/nod
phil, elinda, and locked know there's literally a mountain of govn red tape they're just being obtuse. They also know Obama could streamline the process.
Quote:
When they break ground on the first one, I'll reconsider my skepticism.
/nod
phil, elinda, and locked know there's literally a mountain of govn red tape they're just being obtuse. They also know Obama could streamline the process.
You stupid mother@#%^er. You don't want them to streamline the process, you want the process to adequately assess safety and other factors, not just slapping down reactors higgledy-piggledy. You actually slow the spread of nuclear power without adequate controls, by generating negative public sentiment and scaring investors. One bad reactor can ruin the industry for a good 10-20 years.
Edited, Mar 2nd 2011 2:41pm by Timelordwho
Just as Planned.
Quote:
No you radical eco-whackos don't want them to streamline the process.
The federal govn has made it impossible to build new refineries or nuclear power plants. That's the problem.
The federal govn has made it impossible to build new refineries or nuclear power plants. That's the problem.
So you think that the Obama administration concocted a scheme where they set up a process to provide loans to the development of nuclear power, but plan to not allow them to actually build. Looney.
You realize that plenty of liberals are pro-nuclear power, right?
varusword75 wrote:
They also know Obama could streamline the process.
Got me there. Fuck. I thought I had somethin---
Oh... wait!
NRC.gov wrote:
PURPOSE:
To inform the Commission of staff actions that are being implemented in order to streamline the design certification rule (DCR) rulemaking process for new reactor designs. This paper does not address new commitments.
BACKGROUND:
Recently the nuclear industry has shown significant interest in licensing new reactors. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has docketed one combined license (COL) application incorporating by reference the U.S. Advanced Boiling-Water Reactor, a previously certified design (Appendix A, “Design Certification Rule for the U.S. Advanced Boiling-Water Reactor,†to 10 CFR Part 52). Currently, 10 COL applications docketed by the NRC incorporate by reference designs that have been recently submitted to the NRC for certification, such as the U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor, the U.S. Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor, and the Economic Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor. In addition, six COL applications reference an amendment to the Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) design (Appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,†to 10 CFR Part 52). As a result, the staff is reviewing COL applications in parallel with the NRC review of the design certification (DC) applications being referenced.
The referenced DCR must be completed (i.e., the final rule published in the Federal Register) before the NRC can make a decision on the COL application referencing that DC. The DC schedule consists of: (1) the design review and issuance of a final safety evaluation report documenting the NRC’s safety conclusions related to the design; and (2) a rulemaking approved by the Commission that codifies that DC in the agency’s regulations. The review schedules for certain DCs and their reference COLs are projected to be nearly parallel, with the DCR being completed just before the completion of the COL hearing process and subsequent licensing decision. If the DCR is not issued by the time that the NRC is ready to make a decision on the COL application, the COL decision may, under certain circumstances, have to await the issuance of the final DCR. Based on this background the staff concluded that a rulemaking schedule shorter than the typical 24-month NRC rulemaking schedule would be of value for DCR rulemakings.
To inform the Commission of staff actions that are being implemented in order to streamline the design certification rule (DCR) rulemaking process for new reactor designs. This paper does not address new commitments.
BACKGROUND:
Recently the nuclear industry has shown significant interest in licensing new reactors. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has docketed one combined license (COL) application incorporating by reference the U.S. Advanced Boiling-Water Reactor, a previously certified design (Appendix A, “Design Certification Rule for the U.S. Advanced Boiling-Water Reactor,†to 10 CFR Part 52). Currently, 10 COL applications docketed by the NRC incorporate by reference designs that have been recently submitted to the NRC for certification, such as the U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor, the U.S. Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor, and the Economic Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor. In addition, six COL applications reference an amendment to the Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) design (Appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,†to 10 CFR Part 52). As a result, the staff is reviewing COL applications in parallel with the NRC review of the design certification (DC) applications being referenced.
The referenced DCR must be completed (i.e., the final rule published in the Federal Register) before the NRC can make a decision on the COL application referencing that DC. The DC schedule consists of: (1) the design review and issuance of a final safety evaluation report documenting the NRC’s safety conclusions related to the design; and (2) a rulemaking approved by the Commission that codifies that DC in the agency’s regulations. The review schedules for certain DCs and their reference COLs are projected to be nearly parallel, with the DCR being completed just before the completion of the COL hearing process and subsequent licensing decision. If the DCR is not issued by the time that the NRC is ready to make a decision on the COL application, the COL decision may, under certain circumstances, have to await the issuance of the final DCR. Based on this background the staff concluded that a rulemaking schedule shorter than the typical 24-month NRC rulemaking schedule would be of value for DCR rulemakings.
Streamlining the process for approving the AP1000 reactor? But I'm sure no one uses those silly thing!
Charlotte Business Journal wrote:
Vogtle, being built by Southern Co.’s Georgia Power Co., is the lead AP1000 project in the United States. Initial work has been done on the site, and the state has already approved the plant.
Damn, that Obama sure does hate nuclear power!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
varusword75 wrote:
Timmy,
No you radical eco-whackos don't want them to streamline the process.
The federal govn has made it impossible to build new refineries or nuclear power plants. That's the problem.
So can one fictional movie.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16wwln-freakonomics-t.html
Quote:
You stupid mother@#%^er. You don't want them to streamline the process
No you radical eco-whackos don't want them to streamline the process.
The federal govn has made it impossible to build new refineries or nuclear power plants. That's the problem.
Quote:
One bad reactor can ruin the industry for a good 10-20 years.
So can one fictional movie.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16wwln-freakonomics-t.html
It probably didn't help that 3-mile island happened 12 days after the release of China Syndrome.
If you watch a movie that says a meltdown could render an area the size of Philadelphia uninhabitable and later that week hear on the news that a PA plant had just had a (minor) meltdown event, It's pretty common to be spooked.
Just as Planned.
varusword75 wrote:
Timmy,
For thirty years?
Quote:
It's pretty common to be spooked.
For thirty years?
Well then there was Chernobyl. And yes, I think I put the timing at 10-20 plus whatever it takes to get a project ramped up again. Again, without these mitigating factors, we'd probably be in terrawatt+ power generation levels.
Just as Planned.
varusword75 wrote:
Timmy,
For thirty years?
Quote:
It's pretty common to be spooked.
For thirty years?
Considering that most people I've talked to are in disbelief when I tell them that there were no casualties or even health concerns related to the Three Mile Island event, I'm really not surprised.
The funny thing is the ones who support nuclear power despite believing that it was a disaster.
Kachi wrote:
The funny thing is the ones who support nuclear power despite believing that it was a disaster.
Depends how much they value damages caused by other energy industries at. Commercial nuclear power doesn't kill that many people.
Just as Planned.
Quote:
You stupid mother@#%^er. You don't want them to streamline the process, you want the process to adequately assess safety and other factors, not just slapping down reactors higgledy-piggled
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Jophiel wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
They also know Obama could streamline the process.
Got me there. Fuck. I thought I had somethin---
Oh... wait!
NRC.gov wrote:
PURPOSE:
To inform the Commission of staff actions that are being implemented in order to streamline the design certification rule (DCR) rulemaking process for new reactor designs. This paper does not address new commitments.
BACKGROUND:
Recently the nuclear industry has shown significant interest in licensing new reactors. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has docketed one combined license (COL) application incorporating by reference the U.S. Advanced Boiling-Water Reactor, a previously certified design (Appendix A, “Design Certification Rule for the U.S. Advanced Boiling-Water Reactor,†to 10 CFR Part 52). Currently, 10 COL applications docketed by the NRC incorporate by reference designs that have been recently submitted to the NRC for certification, such as the U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor, the U.S. Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor, and the Economic Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor. In addition, six COL applications reference an amendment to the Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) design (Appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,†to 10 CFR Part 52). As a result, the staff is reviewing COL applications in parallel with the NRC review of the design certification (DC) applications being referenced.
The referenced DCR must be completed (i.e., the final rule published in the Federal Register) before the NRC can make a decision on the COL application referencing that DC. The DC schedule consists of: (1) the design review and issuance of a final safety evaluation report documenting the NRC’s safety conclusions related to the design; and (2) a rulemaking approved by the Commission that codifies that DC in the agency’s regulations. The review schedules for certain DCs and their reference COLs are projected to be nearly parallel, with the DCR being completed just before the completion of the COL hearing process and subsequent licensing decision. If the DCR is not issued by the time that the NRC is ready to make a decision on the COL application, the COL decision may, under certain circumstances, have to await the issuance of the final DCR. Based on this background the staff concluded that a rulemaking schedule shorter than the typical 24-month NRC rulemaking schedule would be of value for DCR rulemakings.
To inform the Commission of staff actions that are being implemented in order to streamline the design certification rule (DCR) rulemaking process for new reactor designs. This paper does not address new commitments.
BACKGROUND:
Recently the nuclear industry has shown significant interest in licensing new reactors. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has docketed one combined license (COL) application incorporating by reference the U.S. Advanced Boiling-Water Reactor, a previously certified design (Appendix A, “Design Certification Rule for the U.S. Advanced Boiling-Water Reactor,†to 10 CFR Part 52). Currently, 10 COL applications docketed by the NRC incorporate by reference designs that have been recently submitted to the NRC for certification, such as the U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor, the U.S. Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor, and the Economic Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor. In addition, six COL applications reference an amendment to the Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) design (Appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,†to 10 CFR Part 52). As a result, the staff is reviewing COL applications in parallel with the NRC review of the design certification (DC) applications being referenced.
The referenced DCR must be completed (i.e., the final rule published in the Federal Register) before the NRC can make a decision on the COL application referencing that DC. The DC schedule consists of: (1) the design review and issuance of a final safety evaluation report documenting the NRC’s safety conclusions related to the design; and (2) a rulemaking approved by the Commission that codifies that DC in the agency’s regulations. The review schedules for certain DCs and their reference COLs are projected to be nearly parallel, with the DCR being completed just before the completion of the COL hearing process and subsequent licensing decision. If the DCR is not issued by the time that the NRC is ready to make a decision on the COL application, the COL decision may, under certain circumstances, have to await the issuance of the final DCR. Based on this background the staff concluded that a rulemaking schedule shorter than the typical 24-month NRC rulemaking schedule would be of value for DCR rulemakings.
Streamlining the process for approving the AP1000 reactor? But I'm sure no one uses those silly thing!
Charlotte Business Journal wrote:
Vogtle, being built by Southern Co.’s Georgia Power Co., is the lead AP1000 project in the United States. Initial work has been done on the site, and the state has already approved the plant.
Damn, that Obama sure does hate nuclear power!
And when ground is broken, I'll reverse my skepticism.
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam
Sedao
Sedao
varusword75 wrote:
Kastigar,
/nod
phil, elinda, and locked know there's literally a mountain of govn red tape they're just being obtuse. They also know Obama could streamline the process.
Quote:
When they break ground on the first one, I'll reconsider my skepticism.
/nod
phil, elinda, and locked know there's literally a mountain of govn red tape they're just being obtuse. They also know Obama could streamline the process.
The local and state level governments are ones impacted and the ones that would require the bulk of the permitting. If it's lengthy it is necessarily so. Any kind of large energy facility would take years of planning, review, permitting and construction.
The danger of nuclear power is over-hyped. But we refine, transport and use lots and lots and lots of oil/gas/coal, so there is certainly more opportunity for accidental death. Using fossil fuels is messier than nuclear. Still there is the unknown. Radiation can be really uncontrollable stuff once it leaves it's containment.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
You stupid mother@#%^er. You don't want them to streamline the process, you want the process to adequately assess safety and other factors, not just slapping down reactors higgledy-piggled
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Quote:
Depends how much they value damages caused by other energy industries at. Commercial nuclear power doesn't kill that many people.
I'm referring to people who think that Three Mile Island was as bad as Chernobyl (very possibly confusing the two entirely). I think it might be difficult to argue that other energy industries contend with that level of damage were they hypothetically on the same playing field.
Jophiel wrote:
Just for extra fun, here's the only thread where we discuss NAFTA during the campaign. Somehow it's not really how Gbaji says it happened but more like how he wishes to remember it.
Huh?
gbaji wrote:
The problem is that Obama tends to speak in vague terms and allow the audience he's speaking to just assume that he agrees with the signs and slogans that they're holding. Certainly, there were a whole lot of Dems who voted for Obama in the primary based on the assumption that he did want to "end NAFTA".
Sounds exactly like what I said earlier in this thread. Obama uses vague language to allow the audience before him to assume a position without actually committing himself in any way. Where is the inconsistency? He stood in front of a very anti-NAFTA crowd during the primaries and spoke, and when the event was over, the crowd supported him because they thought he was anti-NAFTA and Clinton took a more middle ground position.
Did he "lie"? No. Because when you read the transcripts, he didn't actually say anything committal. But that's my point. He does this deliberately in order to appear to be saying what the audience wants to hear, but leaving him sufficient room to do something else entirely later. I'm saying that his language regarding nuclear power is the same thing. He does not commit to anything, so he's not taking a strong pro-nuclear stance. Period. You can jump up and down and insist that he is, but I'm not buying it.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
As I recall, he campaigned pretty strongly to include nuclear power as a part of his energy policy. It was one of the few things that he and McCain agreed upon.
Recent Visitors: 463
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (463)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Barack Obama will win the 2012 election
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC