Balta1701

QUOTE (The Baconator @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 01:06 PM) Realistically, Milledge knows the consequences of his actions. Even with today's pitchers, you're going to get it high and tight next time up. If the kid wants to do his think at the risk of getting plunked the next time up, I say let him. Maybe he'll learn something. I think the biggest part of the problem is that there's been very little sign he knows the consequences of his actions.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 10:49 AM) expanding existing sites does not require substantial invest in power grid innfrastructure. btw, where is the 100 plant number coming from? whats the current fossil fuel generating capacity in the us? id look it up but my phone sucks. Currently there are just over 100 nuclear plants in the United States. Nuclear energy produces just over 20% of U.S. electric consumption. Over ~ a 1 year period, for the last 3 years, Nuclear has averaged 800 million megawatt hours. Currently, fossil fuels, Coal and Natural Gas, produce 65% of U.S. electricity. Including oil fired plants and a few other gases that come out of wells, for the last 3 years, fossil fuel has averaged 2.9 million megawatt hours. If we were to double the number of nuclear plants in the united states, that would be 200 nuclear plants (plus a lot of the current ones are old and at or beyond their lifespan). If we simply assume that those plants generate as much electric as the last generation, doubling the number of plants would push nuclear to 40% of our electric consumption. Obviously of course that's a poor assumption because a modern plant would be a little more efficient, so I'll go up to 45%-50%, assuming serious improvement in nuclear plant efficiency. If we wanted to push nuclear to the point that it would replace both coal and gas, then we're talking about even more than 100+ nuclear plants, we're talking about 200-ish new nuclear plants, in addition to maintaining the 100 current ones. Recent construction estimates have wound up being $10 billion or more per plant. And furthermore, those cost estimates are almost certainly underestimates, since no proposed reactor has ever come in at or below cost. That means to me that without any additional consideration of fuel supplies, waste reprocessing, connections to the power grid, meltdowns, etc., replacing fossil fuel generation with nuclear electricity over the next 40 years is a $3 trillion+ process. There is a reason why private investors treat nuclear power like it's radioactive.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 01:07 PM) Its not inconsistencies of the US, its inconsistencies of the UN. I hate to break it to you, but the US was not the one pushing for action in Libya, it was the French and English. The US army is merely a tool of the UN when it comes to UN enforcement. All of these articles that attack the US, should be attacking the UN. The U.N. of course didn't choose to act one bit until the U.S. decided to act. The U.S. army is a tool of the U.N., but the U.N. is a tool of U.S. foreign policy. And both France and England had serious domestic issues to consider, as I've pointed out previously.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 10:04 AM) Sox announce new organist.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 10:09 AM) you are being delibaretly obfuscatory. the entire national grid does not need to be rebuilt to bring new nuclear plants online. even to expand it to 85% of our generating capacity. the same cannot be said for sources like solar and wind with battery backup systems (that dont yet exist). the technological capabilitis to bring wind and solar to that level along with some sort of carbon-free backup is likely decades off. in the meantime, id like to prevent a single new coal plant from being built while also replacing existing plants with a carbon-free source. ideally this would be the last generation built. No, the entire national grid does not need to be rebuilt to bring single nuclear plants online, but again, that is responding to my point by switching topics. A huge amount of grid construction is required to bring electricity from a single large generating plant to market. If one were to build 100+ nuclear plants, doubling the current number, one would simultaneously need an enormous amount of grid construction...nearly the entire country. In addition, a huge amount of maintenance on the current system has been deferred or ignored for financial reasons, which of course, makes it even harder for the current grid to absorb the electricity generated from new large sources. Furthermore, the grid as it stands right now is incredibly vulnerable, not only to accidents like the one we saw in 2003 but to natural events as well (a good chunk of the western U.S. grid will need to be completely rebuilt when the San Andreas goes). The capabilities to integrate huge fractions of non-baseload sources into a smart grid exist right now. This is not a problem of innovation. It's a problem of inertia.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 10:03 AM) You mean where they fill the bottles out of a unfiltered garden hose? No, where the plant happens to be sitting right next to a place that's ~ worse than a superfund site

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 09:56 AM) fourth, if we started building 100 plants today for a total cost of $1t(somewhat generous in your favor), we'd have over a terawatt of carbon-free generation online by 2020. solar and wind, even with ng backups emitting carbon, are no where near that capability, especially across the entire country. the grid also couldnt sustain that sort of intermitent power and would need to be completely revamped. The grid needs to be completely revamped every time a new plant is built to bring the electricity built in that plant to market. Hell, the grid needs to be completely revamped anyway, regardless of renewables or not.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 09:51 AM) third, spent fuel is a national security and regional/national environmental concern. it makes sense for the federal government to handle this especially since they have their own radioactive material thats much more dangerous than commercial-grade fuel. and of course they promised to do so. in the end, spent fuel reimbursements dont amount to much anyway. You just changed the subject again. Spent fuel reimbursements are only a small portion of the total subsidy regime...although as Japan just proved, it's an underappreciated part. There are lots of other elements of the government paying for the waste. Reprocessing facility operation. Security. Storage of the lower-grade water waste. If you want to count everything, here's the UCS's version. Yucca Mountain has a $90 billion price tag for crying out loud.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 09:52 AM) Greenwald with another solid piece today. Um...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 09:48 AM) this will be multipart since my phone deleted my wot reply. first, i would strongly oppose elimination of energy subsidies. "free hand of the market" is a libertarian fantasy when it comes to scientific development, especially the basic science needed to advance nuclear, solar and battery technologies for the next generations. externalities should be priced. unfortunately,because the democrats failed to act when they had the chance, this likely wont happen for years. this, coupled with the recession, is the primary reason the nuclear renassaince is stalled. the financial incentive isnt there because fossil fuel plants save billions on health and environmental costs. Now wait a second...there is a huge difference between funding future research and subsidizing current production. If you can't grasp that then don't bother with a second reply. I have zero problem with spending a lot of money on actual "CO2 sequestration" projects to see if they can be made to work, for example.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 09:41 AM) acutally this is a great example of ruining legitimate discussion. i never called them nazi supporters, i dont think soxbadger did either. wwii isolationists at worst. And you really don't think that "wwii isolationists" is exactly the same thing? H. Christ man.

After the last 2 games, the Bulls now have the largest positive "Points differential" in the NBA. Which the statistics guys tell me is meaningful.

QUOTE (daa84 @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 09:23 AM) i suppose i mean real upside options from within our own system...I agree that going with a young guy is never an exceptional, or even good option as the 5th starter. But at least other organizations have young guys who give them some sort of hope. I'd way rather be in a spot like the cubs where at least you can hope for a break out by a guy like cashner. At least there is upside with other teams. The most I am hoping for out of this Humber is a 5 or so ERA across the innings he can pitch, nothing more. Ok, you used the Cubs as an example. Here's their starting rotation depth chart. Zambrano Dempster Garza Wells Silva James Russell/Andrew Cashner You really look at that situation and think "Having to choose between Silva, some guy with an ERA over 7 on the spring, and Cashner in the 5th starter spot is a better situation than having Humber for a few games and Peavy if he ever gets healthy?" Even if you're pessimistic about Peavy's return to health and Humber's chances, that's crazy.

No, Godwin's law is there because even if the comparison has some legitimacy, making that comparison ruins any chance for legitimate discussion and immediately moves things to name-calling. Making that comparison immediately compares your political opponents to Nazi supporters. Which you have done several times now.

QUOTE (daa84 @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 09:17 AM) Its pathetic that the best option for the 5th spot in the rotation is a guy we picked up off the scrap heap who has a career 4.49 ERA in the minors. Have you guys actually looked at the rest of the league and considered how many of those teams have exceptional options as a 5th starter?

By the way, you know why Godwin's law exists in the first place? It's because pretty much everyone on a message board realized that the moment they brought in that war, it swamped every other argument. Even if it's a mostly appropriate metaphor, the fact that things went so completely haywire once means that you can pretty much use it to justify whatever policy you want, and once it is thrown in...anyone who opposes your policy is supporting the Nazis and the murder of 6 million jews. "Yeah war is bad, but you'd have supported the Holocaust!"

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 22, 2011 -> 06:35 PM) Of course, if we're going to complain about the need for government subsidies for nuclear, you can't turn around and whine that wind and solar don't get enough subsidies (and they don't). You're still left with the problem that we've no way to replace baseload power supplies with a non-nuclear power plant that doesn't emit carbon for any time in the foreseeable future. I'd be 100% thrilled to get rid of subsidies for everything and let everything compete on its own grounds. This of course means removing the yearly tens of billions of subsidies for fossil fuel dollars. This of course means pricing the externalities for both fossil fuel use and nuclear use. Both pricing carbon emissions and the health costs of fossil fuels. Right now, the health insurance industry (cough) provides a huge subsidy towards fossil fuel use. Right now, the taxpayers provide huge subsidies towards fossil fuel use in that the government pays for rebuilding after weather related disasters (floods, storms, droughts). This of course means that the government shouldn't be paying to take care of nuclear waste. Complaining about renewables being non-baseload is silly when you're simultaneously arguing in favor of trillions of dollars in new nuclear construction (the price of 100+ plants). For that amount of money, you can easily build a grid that can deal with non-baseload power, you can work in battery backups, and I really don't care if we're 85% renewable and 15% natural gas.

It doesn't matter that more people are dying, the refugee situation is worse, and the population is starving, only whether heavy weaponry is used? That's a very odd standard for humanitarian intervention.

QUOTE (MEANS @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 08:43 AM) Dave Matthews Band They're still around?

How many starters sign big, long-term 6-7 year contracts and then don't become injury laden before the end of it?

QUOTE (ptatc @ Mar 22, 2011 -> 05:39 PM) One is medical where no one truly knows. The other was a made up drama purposely arranged for publicity and money. One involves a few local reporters on a single team. The other got more debate than bombing Libya.

GG

TIME with a good overview piece on the problem of developing new nuclear, even before Fukushima.

Granderson strained an oblique.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 22, 2011 -> 03:33 PM) 4) 100$+ Oil $150 is coming soon enough.