Balta1701

Back on the mound even in a B-game by Sunday would be solid.

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 07:58 PM) If we drop down to AAA AJ, Sale, Dunn, Buerhle (winaa), Quentin, Peavy, and maybe a coiuple others, we'd have the best farm system in baseball! f*** Yeah! Do they have options left?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 08:22 PM) One project in early planning phases. What are cost overruns for the 60 or so plants being built around the world? What's the benefit for a utility to seriously underestimate construction costs? Approval for Federal loan guarantees. Private funding. (A private investor would look at a $10 billion reactor and see possibility of profit, while a $15 billion complex would be a likely loss.) Convincing a public-private utility to allow the company to raise its rates to begin construction of the facility ("we've already finished 1/2 the plant, but our costs have gone up, so now we need an additional rate increase or the plant will never be finished). link

Wow, local weather forecasters have gotten good enough to use, as far as I can tell, the Doppler-shift of returning radar waves in order to look for rotation within storm systems.

QUOTE (whtsoxfan @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 06:59 PM) In my opinion, the White Sox have better options for utility: Deaza, also sent down, is a lefty, just like Teahen, but adds a speed dimension (base stealer, pinch runner) , better outfielder, and comparable hitting (better BA, similiar OBP, similiar RBIs). Jordan Danks, another lefty, had an impressive spring, as well. D2 doesn't belong anywhere near this roster right now. If you were to bring De Aza north with you, your only backup IF for 3 positions is 44 year old Omar Vizquel.

QUOTE (whtsoxfan @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 06:40 PM) Let's face it: Teahen's on the roster for one reason and one reason only: HIS CONTRACT ($3.75 million/yr). If Kenny could trade Teahen, he would. My thinking is if the White Sox can pay Manny Ramirez $3 Million, to rent him for a month, why can't they eat some of Teahen's money? After all, isn't it about putting the BEST team on the field? Because eating Teahen's money flat out doesn't make this team better. What player out there available for the league minimum will give you more?

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 06:50 PM) I think the problem in this case is that he was injured when we traded for him to begin with. Then he was set to come back a couple weeks later and he got injured again, I believe. He got hit in the arm with a batted ball.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 06:26 PM) You're also objecting simply because you don't believe the numbers but aren't showing the basis for the objection. When you link to a story about two reactors + transmission lines to demonstrate that one reactor is more than $10b, well, it makes it look like you really don't know the economic end of this. If 2 reactors at one site are quoted as being $5 billion, 1 year later are quoted as being $14 billion with $3 billion in transmission costs, and I assume that it won't be finished on time or under budget...then $10 billion a reactor, in the real world, is probably still underestimating the cost.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 06:37 PM) So does this mean Peavy might have a significant problem or was Romero just taking a look at the MRI results? This means that it came out that JP had tendinitis, and a reasonable person to ask for an opinion was the surgeon who worked on him, even if that surgeon had no new information about JP's current status.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 06:16 PM) Huh? I never said capital costs weren't included. I said that nuclear has an advantage in the fuel column. Look at the chart again. I'm not sure what you're referring to with your 10% figure, but the closest I see is "Total System Levelized Cost" which includes capital, O&M, fuel, transmission and capacity factor. That gives 94.8 for coal and 113.9 for nuclear. If you look at the "Variable O&M" column, that's where fuel costs are factored in. Wind and solar both have 0 for that column. But there's still plenty of expensive fixed O&M for both sources as well as significantly higher capital costs and transmission costs. Couple those with low capacity factors and you end up with higher total system costs than simple "cost to build xxx kW generating station". I was using the maximum cost estimate column. Anyway...if you use the total system levelized cost...you're back to my first objection...that nuclear costs a hell of a lot more than 20% more than coal. If nuclear cost 20% more than coal, with the uncertainty in the price of every fossil fuel for the last 5+ years, there would be enormous amounts of non-governmental money pouring into nuclear.

I want my damn bag of baseballs.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 06:07 PM) That includes operating costs. Capital costs are about 50% higher. If capital costs aren't included then why don't wind and solar show at $0?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 05:11 PM) For reference, the EIA places nuclear at about 1/2 of the costs of solar currently. Solar also has very high regional disparity in costs. Wind is cheaper but not available everywhere and requires significant grid updates/changes to implement. Nuclear is about 25% more than NG with carbon capture but cheaper than coal with carbon capture. Important to note is that simple $/kWe comparisons aren't valid unless they include a capacity factor like these do. http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/2016leveli...sts_aeo2011.pdf The EIA also rates nuclear as costing only 10% more than coal, which is fundamentally untrue.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 04:38 PM) I want to add that I see no reason for nuclear to really be at 85% of our total generating capacity. Balta, we both have the same end goal here: carbon-free renewable generation for the entire country within our lifetimes. In the short term, the only large-scale technology we have to displace coal, oil and natural gas is nuclear. So let's increase that capacity instead of building new ff plants for baseload power and at the same time keep rolling out more and more renewables. In the short term? With the competition for limited equipment, the short-term for building even a handful of nuclear plants is by 2020. Scaling up...your "Short term" is 2030 or beyond. If you're giving me that as a short term, damn right there are other carbon free options.

In other words, my estimate of a 25-50% increase in electricity per plant was exactly correct. Second...if any of the recently proposed reactors had held close to their initial industry cost estimates, there'd be several in construction right now. They have this nasty habit of being proposed at about $5 billion per plant and being put on hi8is a year or two later when the $17 billion price tag comes out.

You could always start there, make $70k the first year, and decide "Man, I ain't leavin' this for unemployment!"

QUOTE (hi8is @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 03:38 PM) Which has always been the case. The surgeon saying yesterday that Peavy will be limited to 60 pitches - was saying so without even seeing him and based upon current circumstances. Things have changed in the last 48 hours and we could get some good news today. Who knows. That same surgeon had another comment somewhere a page or two ago.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 03:28 PM) It was different then and you know it. Our neighborhood was crazy. Kids f***ing everywhere outside all day long. EDIT: Boy does that sentence sound wrong! Really, not for this child of the 90's. I've been struggling with weight and sitting around watching TV since the 80's.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 03:39 PM) Well nice of you to justify that. How sliting a baby's throat child and murdering two siblings and thier parents, like these scumbags did last week. Does that warrant any comment or is that the priceof living with a bunch radical s***bags who need to be wiped off the planet. 1 person gets killed and you call for wiping a population of 4 million people "off the planet".

QUOTE (WilliamTell @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 03:22 PM) When kids actually played games outside and were creative. Now all kids do are either sit in front of a tv, play video games, or go on the computer. No wonder why childhood obesity is high. Go outside and play and make up new games. Our neighborhood was notorious for making up new games. I miss the 90's. There were no video games or TV in the 1990's?

So Ted Lilly is still a Dodger.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 02:56 PM) The Phillies two best pitchers are trades as well. I think the Giants are a better example if you want to use the farm team arguement. OTOH, just about everything in the Giants lineup except their catcher was acquired from somewhere else last year. Free agents, people released by other teams, etc.

When Adam Dunn gives an interview, he can't stop saying the phrase "you know". It's actually, you know, really obnoxious. It's, you know, really, you know hard to, you know, listen to.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 02:18 PM) The silence from Obamaville on the Israeli terrorist attack is deafening. Terrorist attacks in Jerusalem that kill 1 person are, frankly, not uncommon.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 01:25 PM) If cost is the primary concern, they forget about any green power initiatives. If you continue to have your health insurer and your axes subsidize the fossil fuel industry, you're 100% correct. At least for now. (Notably, the concentrated solar plants going in right now in California are quoting prices on the order of $.12/kwh for baseload power supplies, which is actually competitive with fossil fuels right now. Those are of course industry estimates though, so just like with nuclear, you can't assume they'll hit that mark until they hit and beat that mark.) Note #2: biggest green power initiative you could possibly do, btw, continues to be simple efficiency.