StrangeSox

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.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 09:08 AM) Too bad the same standards aren't held up for social entitlement programs, which in my humble opinion, are a lot less important than humanitarian issues. i hate to break this to you, but enough income to scrape by and medical care for the poor, elderly and disabled is a humanitarian issue.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 08:59 AM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 08:49 AM) 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. no reason to be a dick about your unclear phrasing. while were researching carbon sequester that may or may not work for the next decade+ (maybe futuregen will get around to starting by 2020), what are we going replace or expand baseload coail oil and gas plants with?

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.

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.

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.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 08:23 AM) 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. 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.

godwins law isnt there to prevent any legitimate dicussion of or comparison to nazi atrocities. especially when the topic at hand is military humanitarian intervention. on another note, i love all the hand-wringing (especially by conservatives who were gung-ho on iraq) over whether Obama's actions were constitutional. where was all this concern for expanded executive power and cngress's adjucation of their responsibilities for the last 6 decades?

Commercial-grade thorium reactors are still years away, but that's probably what you're thinking of.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 22, 2011 -> 04:44 PM) TIME with a good overview piece on the problem of developing new nuclear, even before Fukushima. Vogtle and VC Summer are moving right along. 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. The article mentions both the hyped "nuclear renaissance" and the failure to pass carbon laws but doesn't take that to it's logical conclusion: nuclear was being hyped several years back because it was assumed that the Democrats would finally stop being a bunch of p*****s and actually pass something for once.

Hey Balta, the Republicans agree with you about Obama's actions being unconstitutional! http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/2...al-obama-warned

Hey, at least we've actually got a chance to use the F-22 against an enemy with RADAR.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 05:14 PM) Wait, what? The first game of the playoffs? Is there something I'm not getting here? Yeah, that first part of the sentence. Hopefully he'll be strong for the rest of the season i.e. he'll pitch well, and then we'll reach the goal of him opening the playoffs for us i.e. the Sox will be in the playoffs.

I do not care about internal UK or French politics. That has no effect on whether or not less civilians will be killed thanks to the no-fly-zone and bombing of Gaddafi's forces that were in violation of a cease-fire.

FWIW I agree that your interpretation is the one that should be followed. But I'm not shocked that a politician would be hypocritical and do the same thing* he argued against when his political opponent was doing it. *to clarify, this is nothing like Iraq or Afghanistan

How many civilians were killed when those tanks were bombed? How many civilians would have been killed if those tanks had rolled on to Benghazi?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 05:29 PM) Well, at least by the textbook definition of Godwin's law, you just lost. Not really, it's a perfectly valid reducto ad absurdem. Or you can admit that you shifted goalposts such that "killing soldiers who were on their way to kill other soldiers as well as a bunch of civilians and just generally decimate a city" is now a humanitarian disaster.

The appropriate interpretation is whatever the C-i-C decides it is.

I was just following orders! The Tragic Tale of the Humanitarian Disaster Inflicted on German Concentration Camp Soldiers by the Allied Forces

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 05:23 PM) And now they were massacred. My point exactly. You've gotten to the point where you are defending Gaddafi's military brutally oppressing an uprising by killing hundreds/thousands of people because, hey, they're people too! There's still a whole bunch of time left to bear out your ideas. But so far, bombing soldiers who were on their way to bomb rebels and civilians doesn't amount to a humanitarian crisis.

I'm pretty comfortable in stating that no Presidential military action will ever be ruled as unconstitutional.