Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Barack Obama will win the 2012 electionFollow

#77 Mar 02 2011 at 9:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
That's all you had to say.

Awww... you and Gbaji are made for each other.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#78varusword75, Posted: Mar 02 2011 at 9:21 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Moe,
#79 Mar 02 2011 at 10:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
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?
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#80varusword75, Posted: Mar 02 2011 at 10:49 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,
#81 Mar 02 2011 at 10:55 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
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.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#82 Mar 02 2011 at 11:24 AM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
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.
So you're saying the government should be forcing private businesses to build and maintain new nuclear plants? I thought you were against government intervention in private industry?

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.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#83 Mar 02 2011 at 11:40 AM Rating: Good
****
7,861 posts
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.

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
#84varusword75, Posted: Mar 02 2011 at 1:10 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Kastigar,
#85 Mar 02 2011 at 1:36 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
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.
Of course there is, it's a fucking nuclear reactor. The government isn't going to just let anyone throw one together.
____________________________
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.
#86 Mar 02 2011 at 1:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Kastigar,

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.
#87varusword75, Posted: Mar 02 2011 at 1:49 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Timmy,
#88 Mar 02 2011 at 1:55 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
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.


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?
____________________________
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.
#89 Mar 02 2011 at 1:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
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.

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.


****, that Obama sure does hate nuclear power!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#90 Mar 02 2011 at 1:58 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Timmy,

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.
#91varusword75, Posted: Mar 02 2011 at 2:05 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Timmy,
#92 Mar 02 2011 at 2:16 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Timmy,

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.
#93 Mar 02 2011 at 2:17 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Timmy,

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.
____________________________
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.
#94 Mar 02 2011 at 2:29 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
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.
#95 Mar 02 2011 at 2:43 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,381 posts
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
I'm all for just slapping one down higgledy-piggled in Knoxville.
____________________________
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

#96 Mar 02 2011 at 3:09 PM Rating: Good
****
7,861 posts
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.

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.


****, 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
#97 Mar 02 2011 at 3:18 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Kastigar,

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.

No, Obama has nothing to do with the process. For the most part the feds have given nuclear power the go ahead.

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
#98 Mar 02 2011 at 3:20 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
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
I'm all for just slapping one down higgledy-piggled in Knoxville.
But it might cause a Teenage Mutant Ninja Varus!!
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#99 Mar 02 2011 at 3:25 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
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.
____________________________
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.
#100 Mar 02 2011 at 3:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
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
#101 Mar 02 2011 at 3:34 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
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.
____________________________
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.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 56 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (56)