StrangeSox

The Finnish reactor is being built for a fixed cost of $4.1b, though there is currently arbitration lawsuits filed by both sides to contest an additional $1-2b. That's still well below your $10b+.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 24, 2011 -> 01:24 PM) And having to cut corners and cut back on safety to do it. And that was 2 years ago. The article you posted does not support that claim. If they were cutting those corners and cutting safety, the project wouldn't be delayed to fix the earlier mistakes. I'm still waiting for something, anything that justifies even the $10b cost you're throwing around as a minimum. And a proposal for what large-scale carbon-free systems we can have installed and operating by 2030 for similar or less costs than new nuclear.

Right-wingers, apparently completely ignorant of how arbitration works, are melting down over OMG! SHARIA LAW! in Florida. http://www.fljud13.org/LinkClick.aspx?file...67&mid=1031

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 24, 2011 -> 01:18 PM) Let's be 100% specific...he was declared in material breach of resolution 1554 because the U.S. was given the right to declare him in material breach for virtually anything...including not having complete enough documentation that it had destroyed its weapons. Iraq was required to hand over all of its documents regarding its weapons programs and submit to full inspections. In early December 2002, Iraq handed over somewhere over 10,000 documents. Based on the fact that those documents were incomplete and did not show things that U.S. intelligence believed to be true, Iraq was declared in breach of 1554. However, Iraq was declared in breach of resolution 1554 based on U.S. intelligence...intelligence that was false. The way the resolution was written, the U.S. alone was given the right to determine whether Iraq was in material breach of the resolution, and no other country was given the right to challenge that determination. The U.S. made that determination before the inspectors hit the ground, based on the fact that Saddam's document declaration did not show things that U.S. intelligence *Knew* to be true about Iraq's weapons program. In other words, the U.S. declared Iraq in breach of 1554 based on false intelligence. The inspectors hit the ground in early 2003 and were in fact given unfettered access to Iraq's weapons sites. They found nothing that hadn't been declared before and that the items sealed when the 1998 inspectors were moved out had not been touched and were covered with 5 years of dust. They did find some missiles that were in breach of treaty obligations, and Iraq allowed the inspectors to destroy those missiles. The inspectors reported, repeatedly, that they had a complete record of compliance from the Iraqis, they found no evidence Iraq had restarted its weapons programs, and they found no evidence of Iraqi storage of older banned weapons. Iraq was declared in breach of 1554 based on U.S. intelligence statements. Iraq was judged to be deceiving the inspectors based on U.S. intelligence estimates. Those estimates could not be reviewed by any outside group or challenged by Iraq. The declaration that Iraq was in breach, and the full invasion, was motivated by intelligence that was complete B.S. Iraq did not continue defying resolution 1554, except in the sense that the U.S. was allowed to declare that they were defying it. That was an excellent bit of circular logic in 1554. We also know how hard the administration pushed for this war from the beginning and how the intelligence community was forced to throw together anything they could scrape from the bottom of the barrel for Cheney's group to "re-analyze."

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 24, 2011 -> 07:17 AM) So I gave Grand Theft Auto 4 another go since I just got bored with it getting it at midnight on launch day and everything. But its the same... the game just isn't that fun. I played about half way through and then had no motivation to finish. Every mission was one of three possible choices. I thought they did a much better job with RDR.

Yeah that's a different case. Still, bottling water can lead to ecological disasters.

Did jenks just ask why we don't send the military into US cities?

Bachmann to form exploratory White House committee.

Maine's new Republican governor is ordering that a mural depicting working class Americans be taken down because it's "biased against business owners" I'm glad that the Republicans are doing a hell of a job of showing how terrible they are at government. Bust unions, cut corporate taxes, defund NPR and above all, pass anti-abortion laws. They've got their priorities right in line!

WTF are you even going on about?

Hahahaha oh wow. John Stossel needs to get slapped in the head again.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 24, 2011 -> 10:45 AM) Have you lived anywhere outside of Chicago? There are truly places in this country where filters wont do anything to make the water taste better. We are truly spoiled here. Buying bottled tap water that may be subject to even less regulations than municipal water is still a dumb idea. But I really do shake my head at people who buy case after case of bottled water even though they get Lake Michigan water at home.

Germany is speeding up its phase-out of nuclear! And their carbon emissions are going to rise about 4% a year!

Huh, imagine that, another article with costs well below $10b/reactor even after cost overruns. You're not helping your case.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 10:19 AM) for content maybe, but they do, or use to anyway, run out some quality looking news babes! honestly, not as much difference IMO between those and Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc as there should be! There is no difference between CNN-HLN and TMZ.

VC Summer's projected cost for two new AP1000 reactors is under $10b total and they've already begun site work, unlike Progress. They've actually decreased their cost projections. Completion of the Watts Bar 2 reactor is also coming under budget thus far.

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?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 05:21 PM) I was using the maximum cost estimate column. That was the maximum regional costs to compare variation from region-to-region, which is more important for renewables. I think you're ignoring fuel costs, which are substantial for coal and relatively minimal for nuclear. You're also ignoring substantial anti-nuclear resistance in this country. 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. eta coal had a peak a couple of years ago but leveled out at previous levels:

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 05:09 PM) If capital costs aren't included then why don't wind and solar show at $0? 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".

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 05:03 PM) The EIA also rates nuclear as costing only 10% more than coal, which is fundamentally untrue. That includes operating costs. Capital costs are about 50% higher.

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

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 03:42 PM) 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. We'll have some method of solar/wind actually providing reliable, large-scale, cost-effective baseload power deployed and operable within the next 20 years?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 03:41 PM) In other words, my estimate of a 25-50% increase in electricity per plant was exactly correct. We're currently right at 1GWe for the best uprated units. New reactors are 1.2-1.7+GWe, so that'd be more like 20-70%. Anyway, that was just to bring the numbers into the discussion, not to try to refute something you've said. That's for two reactors at $14b, which is what Vogtle is estimating, plus $3b for additional grid work. So it's still under $10b/reactor. You need to keep plant vs. unit costs in mind here. A single plant could cost $50b but have 6 reactors.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 01:29 PM) Terrorist attacks in Jerusalem that kill 1 person are, frankly, not uncommon. I'm failing to see how this post is "justification" for the attacks.

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.