StrangeSox

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.

Four things: There's only 52 (or 54, I forget right now) plants in the country but a total of 104 operating reactors. Second, industry cost estimates are below $10b/new reactor. Vogtle is estimating something like $14b for two reactors. Cost overrun comparisons to plants started in the 70's before massive regulatory increases are inaccurate both because of the stated regulatory increases after the initial budget was set and because newer reactor designs are simpler and cheaper. Third, Westinghouse's AP1000 reactor is rated at about 1200 MW. The Mitsubishi APWR is around 1700 MW, as are the other designs that have been approved or are under review. Most extant plants in the US are right around 1000 MW/reactor if they've received power uprates. And, finally, investors treat nuclear like it's radioactive because the demand for carbon-free power isn't there because of ineffective Democrats in Congress failing to pass legislation to accurately price fossil fuel power generation. That, and a 9% drop in electricity demand in 2009 to the lowest levels since 1987. If the Democrats had done something about AGW such that new NG plants weren't very price-attractive and if the economy didn't take a nose-dive, new nuclear plants would still be looking very attractive.

id recommend yesterdays fresh air. great interview on the subject.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 22, 2011 -> 03:41 PM) Because they do this: facebook internet facebook check in here facebook texts texts facebook check in again over and over my favorite is when people are on their phone the entire time at a concert. needs to go: jim tressel

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.