Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Barack Obama will win the 2012 electionFollow

#102 Mar 02 2011 at 3:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You can jump up and down and insist that he is, but I'm not buying it.

Again, my intent isn't some vain attempt to get you to admit that you're wrong. I'm just showing everyone else how wrong you are. When the best you have is "He didn't answer the exact way I say he should have answered so it doesn't count!", you make my job really easy. Thank you for that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#103 Mar 02 2011 at 3:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:

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!


*cough* That plant was approved in April of 2008. Oops!

I'll also point out that the site where those plants are being built already contains two nuclear power generators, and had always intended to build a third and fourth unit. It just took a really long time to break ground.

To be fair, final approval for construction was granted in 2009, and I suppose Obama could theoretically have jumped in to stop it if he wanted to. So there's that. But that's hardly an example of being for/against it, so much as it would have taken herculean efforts to do anything to stop it by that point. This really says nothing to us about helping or hindering future construction at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#104 Mar 02 2011 at 3:44 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 posts
Kachi wrote:
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.
Three Mile Island wasn't nearly as bad, you're correct. Also worth noting that Chernobyl resulted in a significant explosion that killed two people immediately, and it's worth reminding that it took place in the Ukraine, not the US (no idea who doesn't know that, but it's worth pointing out). The town is now almost entirely abandoned, so is nearby city Pripyat.



Edited, Mar 2nd 2011 4:12pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#105 Mar 02 2011 at 3:48 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You can jump up and down and insist that he is, but I'm not buying it.

Again, my intent isn't some vain attempt to get you to admit that you're wrong. I'm just showing everyone else how wrong you are. When the best you have is "He didn't answer the exact way I say he should have answered so it doesn't count!", you make my job really easy. Thank you for that.


Huh? The point is that he used words which managed to make every single member of the largely anti-NAFTA audience he was speaking to believe that he was firmly anti-NAFTA. Yet, sometime later when a leaked conversation revealed that he wasn't really anti-NAFTA at all he insisted that this wasn't a flip-flop because he never said he was. And sure enough. You go back and read the transcripts of what he said that night, and he didn't actually commit to an anti-NAFTA stance.


My point is that this doesn't happen accidentally Joph. He deliberately chooses language designed to do this. And yeah. That's deceptive.

Edited, Mar 2nd 2011 1:48pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#106 Mar 02 2011 at 3:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
*cough* That plant was approved in April of 2008. Oops!

The reactors haven't been approved yet but the memo to streamline the process on them was from Jan 30, 2009. Oops! Must have been that nuclear-hatin' Obama!

Quote:
To be fair, final approval for construction was granted in 2009, and I suppose Obama could theoretically have jumped in to stop it if he wanted to.

Yeah, or not had the DoE approve eight billion dollars in loan guarantees (as opposed to the zero dollars the Bush era DoE approved). Oops! Man, he sure does HATE nuclear power!

Or not budgeted the DoE to approve many times that number for additional jobs. Again, as opposed to the zero dollars previously set for be loaned out. Oops! How DOES he keep getting away with this?!

Quote:
This really says nothing to us about helping or hindering future construction at all.

I heard once that human beings can rationalize all sorts of things to themselves to avoid having to face the truth...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#107 Mar 02 2011 at 3:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
My point is that this doesn't happen accidentally Joph. He deliberately chooses language designed to do this.

You can jump up and down and insist that he is, but I'm not buying it. Come to think of it, neither is anyone else.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#108 Mar 13 2011 at 5:25 PM Rating: Default
****
4,143 posts
Hands up all those who are still in favour of building nuclear reactors all over the place.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#109 Mar 14 2011 at 7:13 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
/raise
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#110 Mar 14 2011 at 7:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
A non-catastrophe caused by one of the worst earthquakes in modern history and the subsequent tsunami?

/raise
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#111 Mar 14 2011 at 8:07 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
Jophiel wrote:
A non-catastrophe caused by one of the worst earthquakes in modern history and the subsequent tsunami?

/raise
You gotta kind of wonder about the wisdom of putting them nuclear plants on the coast of an island that experiences more earthquakes than anywhere else in the world.

I think chances are good for there to yet be a radiation catastrophe in Japan.
____________________________
LOOK here.
#112 Mar 14 2011 at 8:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Supposedly, the plant was built to withstand earthquakes, it just wasn't built to withstand an 8.9 quake with a tsunami that wiped out its backup power sources. Live and learn, I guess.

Luckily, both 8.9 earthquakes and tsunamis are vanishingly rare here in the Prairie State.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#113varusword75, Posted: Mar 14 2011 at 8:24 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Not to worry. As we speak Obama has a fleet of attorneys headed to Japan to set things right.
#114 Mar 14 2011 at 9:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
Supposedly, the plant was built to withstand earthquakes, it just wasn't built to withstand an 8.9 quake with a tsunami that wiped out its backup power sources. Live and learn, I guess.

Luckily, both 8.9 earthquakes and tsunamis are vanishingly rare here in the Prairie State.
It's also important to realize that even with this horrific combination of disasters the plants still have not had a catastrophic failure. Pretty impressive really.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#115varusword75, Posted: Mar 14 2011 at 9:27 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) back on topic;
#116 Mar 14 2011 at 9:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Hang on, I've got another "lolrasmussen" in this drawer someplace...

There it is...

lolrasmussen
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#117 Mar 14 2011 at 11:00 AM Rating: Excellent
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/

A good explanation of the nuclear situation in Japan. So yeah, I feel pretty good about nuclear power plants out here.

Edited, Mar 14th 2011 12:03pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#118 Mar 14 2011 at 11:24 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/

A good explanation of the nuclear situation in Japan. So yeah, I feel pretty good about nuclear power plants out here.

Edited, Mar 14th 2011 12:03pm by Xsarus


Good read. I find this stuff pretty fascinating.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#119 Mar 14 2011 at 11:45 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/

A good explanation of the nuclear situation in Japan. So yeah, I feel pretty good about nuclear power plants out here.
Good read. I had just recently done some reading about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, only about 2 weeks ago now. Very interesting topics, particularly given their severity. Glad to hear how how things have been resolved safely. If anything, I'd say that our advances in technology and the lessons learned from previous disasters have made nuclear power very safe and viable, provided tight enough regulations enforcing these safety procedures.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#120 Mar 14 2011 at 12:05 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
bsphil wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/

A good explanation of the nuclear situation in Japan. So yeah, I feel pretty good about nuclear power plants out here.
Good read. I had just recently done some reading about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, only about 2 weeks ago now. Very interesting topics, particularly given their severity. Glad to hear how how things have been resolved safely. If anything, I'd say that our advances in technology and the lessons learned from previous disasters have made nuclear power very safe and viable, provided tight enough regulations enforcing these safety procedures.
Be aware that this blog was written two days ago (I was emailed this same link this morning)...before todays hydrogen explosion. The explanation of nuclear plants is good, but the author makes some pretty bold claims about the current 'safety' of these nuclear plants.

However, minutes ago the IAEA released a statement:
Quote:
IAEA: No signs Japan nuclear fuel melting at present
Published: 03.14.11, 19:47

I think at this time we don't have any indication of fuel ...currently melting," James Lyons, a senior nuclear safety official at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told a news conference on the situation in Japan. (Reuters)
____________________________
LOOK here.
#121 Mar 14 2011 at 12:10 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
I'm sensing cross-thread shenanigans......
____________________________
LOOK here.
#122 Mar 14 2011 at 12:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm pretty sure you're violating the cross thread policy of this forum right now, Elinda.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#123 Mar 14 2011 at 1:00 PM Rating: Excellent
It's all paulsol's fault.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#124 Mar 14 2011 at 1:04 PM Rating: Decent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,886 posts
I've been against nuclear power plants most of my life, until I did some reading and saw a little documentary on pebble bed reactors. I don't know enough about the safety risks of mining and getting thorium to processing plants, but I'm totally happy about the safety to humans and the environment of pebble bed reactors. If the plants suffers even the most catastrophic event, the radiation in the "pebbles" isn't going to go anywhere. The pebbles sit just fine non radiating away when not in operation, and coolant failure is not an issue for them.

The only issue would be if they got vaporised in a meteor strike or something, and quite frankly, a meteor that could vaporise enough of a "pebble" would be a bigger problem than the radioactive vapour it mushed into the air.

So I'm all for pebble bed plants above coal and gas plants. It's just a shame that since you can't get weapons material as a by-product out of a pebble bed reactor, it may be a long time before they take off.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#125 Mar 14 2011 at 3:18 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
I've been against nuclear power plants most of my life, until I did some [research of my own]

It's cool. Most liberals take positions based on emotion and not rational thought. Congratulations of coming around though.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#126 Mar 14 2011 at 3:29 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
/raise


Jophiel wrote:
A non-catastrophe caused by one of the worst earthquakes in modern history and the subsequent tsunami?

/raise


Do we win the trifecta on this?

/raise

See! I didn't even make a comment about Obama's wishy washyness on this. Oops!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#127 Mar 14 2011 at 5:43 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,143 posts
gbaji wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
/raise


Jophiel wrote:
A non-catastrophe caused by one of the worst earthquakes in modern history and the subsequent tsunami?

/raise


Do we win the trifecta on this?

/raise




Non-catastrophe? Smiley: dubious




____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#128 Mar 14 2011 at 5:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
I think the fact that the "second worst nuclear accident in history" will in all probability have a lower death toll and negative overall health effect on the surrounding area than the 100th worst coal accident (including both refinery and plant explosions) in the world should suggest that we're really comparing apples to oranges.

Let me put this to you another way: Remember the film on the first day of the earthquake showing a refinery on fire? The total harmful health effects from that explosion and fire will almost certainly be greater that those caused by what's going on at that nuclear plant. It's just that pollutants and the lung disease caused by them are so common in one case that we accept them, while the harm caused by radiation poisoning is rare so we make note of it.

Stop looking at this emotionally and look at it rationally.

EDIT: Oh. And both the short and long term negative health effects of the fully natural disaster dwarfs both of those. Put things in perspective.

Edited, Mar 14th 2011 4:56pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#129 Mar 14 2011 at 6:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yes. Can we wait for the blighted radioactive wasteland to actually exist before declaring that it's already so?
Financial Times wrote:
But Mr Amano added his voice to those playing down the risk of a catastrophic event. “The reactor vessels have held and radioactive release is limited,” he said.

John Gittus, a nuclear risk expert at Swansea University in Wales, estimated that there was a 1 per cent chance of a serious radiological disaster occuring at the Fukushima No 2 reactor.

In the worst case, Prof Gittus said, the fuel rods in the core would melt, fracturing the reactor’s pressure vessel and then breaking the concrete and steel containment around it. That could release large amounts of radioactive material into the environment.

“The likelihood of that happening is about one in 100,” he said, “But if it does happen the most likely consequence would be a few dozen people dying of radiation poisoning and a large area of land contaminated.”


Edit: The earthquake was upgraded from an 8.9 to 9.0 which would make it (so I've heard) the 4th worst earthquake in modern history and the worst in 130+ years in Japan.

Edited, Mar 14th 2011 7:03pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#130 Mar 14 2011 at 11:49 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
847 posts
I dunno, Obama, I think is going to have a hard time winning re-election in 2012.

The economy hasn't improved much, and employment is still quite a ways down. Under Obama, the deficit has ran up to never before seen levels (think WWII levels). And his foreign policy record isn't exactly stellar so far either.

Still, to Obama's credit, he's no dummy. He did do what he said he would do, for the most part, but there's still alot that people don't like about him. If 2010 is any indication, Obama's re-election will have a difficult time.

That's not to say he's a "dead cat President" just quite yet. Things can still change between now and 2012, and it really does depend on who the Republicans field to against him.
#131 Mar 15 2011 at 8:32 AM Rating: Default
***
2,971 posts
Keylin,

Quote:
The economy hasn't improved



Quote:
employment is still quite a ways down



Quote:
deficit has ran up to never before seen levels




Fact is Obama's done what he wanted to. It really doesn't matter to him if he wins the next time around or not. Obamacare was his vision and he accomplished it, doesn't matter if it's good for the people and industry or that most of the people don't want it. Liberals have been trying to accomplish this for over 50 years and Obama was the one that pushed it through.
#132 Mar 15 2011 at 2:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Obama disappointed us all today when he took advantage of the crisis in Japan to follow in the tracks of nations like Germany and sent his socialist energy secretary out to announce the suspension of all planned nuclear power plants in the US.
Bloomberg wrote:
Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the U.S. doesn’t need to suspend work on new nuclear permits while investigating the crisis in Japan, where officials are struggling with reactors damaged by an earthquake and tsunami.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission review is long enough that revisions can be made to reflect findings from the examination of failures at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Daiichi nuclear station, he said.

“If you look at the process in which the NRC approves going forward with construction projects and nuclear reactors, it’s a thoughtful process,” Chu told reporters today. “It’s a multiyear process and because of its very nature, I think these things can proceed.”
[...]
Chu reiterated the administration’s support for nuclear power and said new reactor designs similar to Southern Co. (SO)’s Vogtle unit are safer because they rely less on electric power to pump cooling water to prevent overheating.

The planned Vogtle plant, which received $8.3 billion in loan guarantees from the Energy Department, would use the AP 1000 reactor design by Toshiba Corp. (6502)’s Westinghouse Electric Co.


Well... I was close!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#133 Mar 15 2011 at 4:08 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,708 posts
gbaji wrote:
I think the fact that the "second worst nuclear accident in history" will in all probability have a lower death toll and negative overall health effect on the surrounding area than the 100th worst coal accident (including both refinery and plant explosions) in the world should suggest that we're really comparing apples to oranges.

Let me put this to you another way: Remember the film on the first day of the earthquake showing a refinery on fire? The total harmful health effects from that explosion and fire will almost certainly be greater that those caused by what's going on at that nuclear plant. It's just that pollutants and the lung disease caused by them are so common in one case that we accept them, while the harm caused by radiation poisoning is rare so we make note of it.

Stop looking at this emotionally and look at it rationally.

EDIT: Oh. And both the short and long term negative health effects of the fully natural disaster dwarfs both of those. Put things in perspective.

Edited, Mar 14th 2011 4:56pm by gbaji


This.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#134 Mar 15 2011 at 4:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,708 posts
Oh, is Varus still talking about how he wants to make the approval process for nuclear plants quick and super easy so business will flourish?

I don't think he is.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#135 Mar 15 2011 at 4:17 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
*****
19,496 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Obama disappointed us all today when he took advantage of the crisis in Japan to follow in the tracks of nations like Germany and sent his socialist energy secretary out to announce the suspension of all planned nuclear power plants in the US.
Bloomberg wrote:
Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the U.S. doesn’t need to suspend work on new nuclear permits while investigating the crisis in Japan, where officials are struggling with reactors damaged by an earthquake and tsunami.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission review is long enough that revisions can be made to reflect findings from the examination of failures at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Daiichi nuclear station, he said.

“If you look at the process in which the NRC approves going forward with construction projects and nuclear reactors, it’s a thoughtful process,” Chu told reporters today. “It’s a multiyear process and because of its very nature, I think these things can proceed.”
[...]
Chu reiterated the administration’s support for nuclear power and said new reactor designs similar to Southern Co. (SO)’s Vogtle unit are safer because they rely less on electric power to pump cooling water to prevent overheating.

The planned Vogtle plant, which received $8.3 billion in loan guarantees from the Energy Department, would use the AP 1000 reactor design by Toshiba Corp. (6502)’s Westinghouse Electric Co.


Well... I was close!


Oh, I know that facility. If I went to the top of the closed, no-longer-used landfill about 2 miles from my house, and stood at the gates at the apex of the hill on a clear day, I could see the cooling towers, about 40 miles away. It was kinda cool. (We used to break into the dead landfill because damn it was great dirt bike riding back there.)

Edited, Mar 15th 2011 6:18pm by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#136varusword75, Posted: Mar 16 2011 at 10:03 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Timey,
#137 Mar 16 2011 at 11:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Who is "they"? A host? Guest? Administration spokesperson? Power company rep? Greenpeace activist?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#138 Mar 16 2011 at 11:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
Who is "they"? A host? Guest? Administration spokesperson? Power company rep? Greenpeace activist?


The voices in his head. They keep the skull from deflating.
____________________________
Love,
PunkFloyd
#139 Mar 16 2011 at 2:53 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,624 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Timey,

Quote:
Oh, is Varus still talking about how he wants to make the approval process for nuclear plants quick and super easy so business will flourish?


Just heard on npr this morning that the US is planning to build a few new nuclear plants....over the next 30yrs. They actually said that.

Well, it's not like you can pop up a dozen nuke plants overnight, like a new housing development. "Over thirty years" can include "starting tomorrow". Did you get anything more specific than "a few"?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#140 Mar 16 2011 at 3:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm still wondering about "they". Why even start to quibble over numbers if "they" was a random caller or the janitor?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#141varusword75, Posted: Mar 16 2011 at 3:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,
#142 Mar 16 2011 at 4:29 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,624 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Quote:
was a random caller or the janitor


Not unless npr is trying to pass off janitors as reporters. Renee Montain is the one who was asking the questions.

But who was answering the questions?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#143 Mar 16 2011 at 4:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Renee Montain is the one who was asking the questions.

So she said "three in thirty years" or someone else did? Is someone else, who?

Transcript of this morning's Morning Edition segment with Renee Montagne talking about nuclear energy. Someone said we hadn't built a plant in thirty years because of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and that projections are for four or five new nuclear power plants by 2035 (4 to 5 in 24 years, not 3 in 30 years) because gas turbine plants are significantly cheaper.

NPR wrote:
As NPR's Chris Arnold reports, it's not just fear that's keeping nuclear power in check in the U.S., it's also economics.

CHRIS ARNOLD: The biggest recent obstacle to building new nuclear power plants is that it just costs way too much money to build a modern super-safe nuclear reactor. That is, when you can build much cheaper power-plants that burn natural gas.
[...]
Mr. ROBERT EYNON (Energy Information Administration): The bulk of all the new capacity that we're projecting between now and 2035 is gas-fired technology.

ARNOLD: The EIA projects the growth of different types of power plants -natural gas versus hydroelectric versus nuclear or coal - and it predicts some growth in nuclear, about five gigawatts from four or five new nuclear power plants.
[...]
ARNOLD: And the driver there is just basic economics, that it's just natural gas is cheaper and it's cheaper to build natural gas power plants.

Mr. EYNON: That's correct.
[...]
ARNOLD: John Longenecker is a consultant. He used to work for the U.S. Department of Energy and later for the private company General Atomics. He explains that a few nuclear power plants are under construction now, but before that the U.S. hadn't built a new one in more than 30 years. And for a long time that was because of fears stemming from the disaster at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

But since then, a safer track record and concern about global warming has made nuclear power look more attractive.

Mr. LONGENECKER: The nuclear plants are not a carbon emitter. So when you're worried about clean air, it's one of the cleanest sources that you find.

ARNOLD: In fact, the government is now offering tax credits and guaranteed loans as incentives to build nuclear power plants. But natural gas has been more plentiful and falling dramatically in price lately. Also, the recession curbed power demands somewhat. And lawmakers failed to pass tough carbon emissions legislation.

Mr. LONGENECKER: Clean air legislation has not passed and so the thought was that the cap and trade or some type of carbon tax would be a strong incentive and advantage to a nuclear power plant that is a non-carbon emitter. So the downturn in the economy, the lower price, the lower demand and the lack of a carbon tax have all been negatives to nuclear power.


There ya go. The GOP hates nuclear power and are holding it down by backing carbon-emitting power plants!

Edited, Mar 16th 2011 5:57pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#144 Mar 16 2011 at 8:41 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Lol. They're presenting the same sort of twisted logic you use. Let's blame the GOP not passing a bunch of nutty environmental laws for why we're not building a bunch of nuclear power plants which are mostly opposed by those same nutty environmentalists.

Look. I get that some Democrats play lip service to the need for nuclear power. I even get that it's possible some Democrats actually do *want* to build nuclear power plants. But the largest opposition to nuclear power by far in this country comes from the active political left, not the right. The Dem's may play the whole "sure we'll build them" game, but they also put in so many obstacles that it takes vastly longer to build them and costs so much more that very few if any can or will be built.

Did the segment discuss why those costs are so high? You don't see how dismissing this as just economics kinda misses the full picture here?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#145 Mar 16 2011 at 9:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Let's blame the GOP...

I was making a joke, retard. They didn't mention the GOP at all and were simply speaking about the industry. The guy who mentioned the failure of a carbon tax law as a reason why investment will remain in gas power was previously a consultant for General Atomics:
General Atomics wrote:
General Atomics was conceived in 1955 at San Diego, California for the purpose of harnessing the power of nuclear technologies for the benefit of mankind. General Atomics’ basic research into fission and fusion has matured into competence in many technologies, making GA and its affiliated companies one of the world’s leading resources for high-technology systems development ranging from the nuclear fuel cycle to remotely operated surveillance aircraft, airborne sensors, and advanced electric, electronic, wireless and laser technologies.

Here's his little write-up (PDF) describing himself on his energy consulting firm website
Longenecker wrote:
President Bush appointed Mr. Longenecker in December 1992 to serve as Transition Manager for the United States Enrichment Corporation, a government owned, for-profit corporation that provides uranium enrichment services to electric utilities throughout the world.
[...]
In the area of commercial nuclear power, Mr. Longenecker served from 2001-2004 as a member of the Board of Directors of the Nuclear Energy Institute. In addition, from 1997-1999 Mr. Longenecker assisted Ontario Hydro Nuclear in developing and implementing a more effective regulatory compliance strategy for their 20 nuclear power plants. In 1997, Mr. Longenecker chaired OHN’s Regulatory Impact Task Force, reporting to the Vice President of Regulatory Affairs.


Sounds like a real nuclear hatin' Democrat out to blame the GOP while sabotaging any progress in nuclear technology!

This is where you embarrass yourself for ten posts insisting that my comment was REAL SERIOUS!

God, you're fucking stupid when you get all ideological and just start knee-jerk screaming about the Democrats without having a fucking clue what you're talking about. Don't you ever just take a deep breath and look into something before the yelling starts?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#146 Mar 17 2011 at 4:24 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
God, you're @#%^ing stupid when you get all ideological and also most other times.


Fixed for brevity/clarity.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#147varusword75, Posted: Mar 17 2011 at 7:51 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#148 Mar 17 2011 at 8:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
So now you know where I get my news.

Given how inaccurate you were, I suppose it's safer to say that now I know where the seeds are from which you make up the news.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#149varusword75, Posted: Mar 17 2011 at 9:00 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#150 Mar 17 2011 at 9:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Jophed,

Quote:
Given how inaccurate you were, I suppose it's safer to say that now I know where the seeds are from which you make up the news


You have to use creative listening skills to get to the bottom of things.



More like subjective interpretation than creative listening, really.

Creative listening would be like... I dunno, using a something to convert sound waves into colors.

So, basically listening while high Smiley: nod

Edited, Mar 17th 2011 11:18am by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#151 Mar 18 2011 at 7:02 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Let's blame the GOP...

I was making a joke, retard. They didn't mention the GOP at all and were simply speaking about the industry. The guy who mentioned the failure of a carbon tax law as a reason why investment will remain in gas power was previously a consultant for General Atomics:


For someone just making a joke, you sure did spend a lot of time insisting that the guy making the statement you joked about isn't a partisan liberal. Kinda strange how often your jokes mean so much to you.

Quote:
Sounds like a real nuclear hatin' Democrat out to blame the GOP while sabotaging any progress in nuclear technology!


Yup. Spending a lot of time defending a joke, aren't you?

Quote:
This is where you embarrass yourself for ten posts insisting that my comment was REAL SERIOUS!


Ah. But you made this statement, so I guess that just solves everything, doesn't it? I don't have to spend any time insisting anything. You spent tons of time on it yourself. How about this: I'll take your jokes just as seriously as you take them. Sound ok?


And while spending a huge amount of effort and page space attacking my two line response to your joke, you kinda managed to ignore the meat of my post:

Quote:
Look. I get that some Democrats play lip service to the need for nuclear power. I even get that it's possible some Democrats actually do *want* to build nuclear power plants. But the largest opposition to nuclear power by far in this country comes from the active political left, not the right. The Dem's may play the whole "sure we'll build them" game, but they also put in so many obstacles that it takes vastly longer to build them and costs so much more that very few if any can or will be built.


Decent attempt at spin though. I'll give you a 4 out of 10 on this one.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 70 All times are in CDT