StrangeSox

But it is irrelevant because the message behind this ad is "I went against doctor's advice in a high-risk pregnancy"

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 4, 2010 -> 07:58 AM) (If you don't count the waste material) (Which you shouldn't, because its contained and not shot into the air, but it gives another argument for building newer plants that generate less waste with much shorter half-lifes and can actually use up a lot of the stored fuel)

You can always take your gen eds at community college over the summers or even online during a regular semester. I know plenty of people who went to U of I and also took classes at Parkland (the local CC).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 06:52 PM) The funny thing is, I got the number from the federal government's website. How's that for irony. You used the WSJ and I trusted the feds. Also, you heard Balta take the message from a college professor. Drop out, it isn't worth it. The article points out the problem with the fed's number from 2003 based on 1999 data.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 06:35 PM) This is from my own backyard, in a little town that is still in our school system, but outside of our city limits in Porter County. This statement is from the PINES group. As a reminder, the EPA will be in town Tuesday the 9th at the Pines Baptist Church on Highway 20 at 6:30pm. Coal plants put out more radioactive pollution than even our Gen II nuclear plants.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 2, 2010 -> 07:51 PM) You'll notice first that you've flipped units. Second, that Moody's analysis actually winds up with the same number you give there, $.25 or so/kwh, as the resultant cost. Why is that number so much higher than the one you give? Because nuclear plants have this nasty habit of having their costs overrun the initial value quoted by as much as a factor of 2-3. You see that in the Florida plants, in the San Antonio Plants, etc. They quote the low price to get people interested and maybe secure a loan where the Federal Government will eat most of the cost whether they get built or not, like what the President has just proposed. Then, as the project leaves the planning phase...boom.Here's Time Magazine talking about this issue last summer: You're focusing solely on installed kW cost. Nuclear power generation and costs over the 50 or 60 year plant life becomes cheap when you amortize the extremely large upfront capital costs. Day-to-day plant operations are much cheaper. Everything I've seen on wind, again, puts it at two to three times as much as nuclear or coal. And let's not pretend wind energy capital costs are cheap, either. Just pulling some quick numbers, the new Twin Groves wind farm in Illinois has 398 MW of capacity for $700M, or $1758/ kW installed. Now add in the cost of whatever backup system you choose because you simply cannot rely on wind energy plus whatever additional infrastructure you need to transport the power from the regions its usable (usually not very populated areas) and you have comparable capital costs with nuclear. Also, don't snip that article short: In other words, if we start building them again, we will increase demand and the workforce will also increase. Don't focus so heavily on the one Moodys study about potential credit problems due to unforseen construction cost increases, either. http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/ Nuclear came out at 6.6 c/kWh, not 25 c/kWh.

Jim Hansen to Obama:

Balta, all cost estimates I can find for wind and solar put it several multiples above nuclear. More in the range of .25-.30/ kWh versus .08-.10 for nukes.

Of course he opposes it. Obama presented it, ergo it is evil incarnate.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Feb 2, 2010 -> 09:59 AM) Because she might not make rash decisions, because she might be overwhelmed by the idea, because she might have just gotten some really bad personal news that you don't know about it. You put it out there, wait a couple days and give her a call. See what happens. She might surprise you with a great answer. She might ignore you, but you won't know unless you follow up. This. It took my now-fiance a few days and some time to process my drunken advances (nothing lude!) as she was just coming out of another relationship.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 2, 2010 -> 08:03 AM) Natural Gas, yeah, I'll agree that's a core climate solution, and it will in the end likely be necessary to keep a few natural gas plants around even after shifting to 100% renewable to meet demand at times when the weather just doesn't cooperate. Saying "there's only so much of it installed" however is not an argument for why more can't be installed right now if we set our minds to it. In particular with wind, less so but still somewhat with solar, the lack of wind generation right now is directly related to the rapidly changing regulatory scheme at the national level here; one year there would be subsidies for wind development on par with what is there for fossil fuels, then the next year those subsidies would disappear, the companies would go bankrupt and all the employees would be out of work, then the next year the subsidies would reappear again but whole new companies would have to be created to make use of them. If we really put our minds to it and put money on the order of the stimulus plan into it, we could have a nearly-carbon-free electricity generation and distribution system within about 10 years based solely on the technology we have right now. Wind power generation domestically the last few years (between stimulus dollars and a non-hateful regulatory environment in 2009 and the fossil fuel price spikes from 2007-2008) has grown at over 40% a a year for the past several years. Solar, likewise. I'm not going to directly argue against nuclear. I will note a couple things; first, the U.S. government on its own subsidizes the nuclear industry to the tune of $1 billion a year in direct cash payouts because the government promised to find a place to store the waste and has yet to do so. Even with that subsidy, nuclear power keeps having a nasty habit of already being vastly more expensive per KWH than renewable or gas generation, because the startup costs are so giant. Here's an example; San Antonio keeps wanting to install 2 new nuclear reactors, but has so far balked because the costs keep going up ($20 billion/reactor and counting). They've proposed a 10% electricity rate hike before the things are even built/on line in order to pay for them. It's difficult to get an exact price per kwh out of the nuclear industry right now, but on average, the quoted rates wind up being 1.5 to 2x the current electricity rates for most of the U.S. Renewables typically can beat that easily. There is of course one way to get around this discussion entirely and to make it much, much clearer which way is the right way to go long term. Put a significant price on carbon, stabilize the regulatory environment for everything, cut out the oil and coal subsidies, and let things sort themselves out. I can agree, in general, with everything you and NSS are saying. I will just point out again that nuclear is a technology we have and we know it is reliable. It is safe. It has minimal environmental impacts. It's current-gen carbon footprint is higher than solar or wind but orders of magnitude lower than coal. Fourth gen plants are estimated to be lower than current solar and wind by a significant margin. From what I've seen you've really overstated the cost of those San Antonio plants. It ranges from $13-17B total, not per reactor. Wind and solar generation isn't cheap, either, and currently costs a lot more than nuclear generation. Please show me where renewables are typically beating nuclear prices. Make sure subsidies for both sources are factored in. And factor in the fact that you still need backups for wind and solar because they're not reliable sources of energy.

Solar, wind, geo and hydro aren't feasible short or mid-term alternatives to coal or NG plants. By all means, let's fund them and research them. But let's not pretend it's a realistic option to replace coal plants in the next decade or two. There's currently less than 1GW of solar thermal power installed in the entire world. Geo power is only feasible in some places. Same goes for wind (Illinois does have a massive wind farm under way, I'll note). Hydro presents its own ecological issues.

No one argues that the health care system in the US is great if you have a lot of money. Also, nice sig. Glad to see that you hold educators in such high regard.

Let's go nuclear Sovacool, B.K. (2008) Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey. Energy Policy, 36, 2950-2963. Current-gen nuclear is orders of magnitude better for the environment than any realistic alternative. By all means, we need to invest in alternatives, but they're just not feasible on massive, 1GW+ scales all over the country. Nuclear is and its a hell of a lot better than coal or LNG. Ecologically it's probably less damaging than a hydrodam. It's marginally worse for carbon output than solar power. It requires substantial investment up front but it recovers it over time and produces cheap, reliable power. If leftists want to live in reality and stop being neo-luddites, they need to drop their opposition to the only real alternative out there. Nukes: 66 g CO2e/kWh Fossils: 443 to 1050 g CO2e/kWh Solar: 29 to 35 g CO2e/kWh And that's current-gen nuclear power. All indications are that fourth gen will be significantly more efficient.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Feb 1, 2010 -> 07:52 PM) In my opinion part of the decline of Kreutz has more to do with the 2 guards we have been putting next to him, the OG's that have been starting for this team the past couple of seasons have been pathetic. That's my opinion as well. Kreutz clearly isn't as good as he once was, but his weaknesses are magnified by having to make up for the crap around him.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 1, 2010 -> 02:49 PM) I am talking price vs functionality. A Kindle does one thing... read books and it costs $489. The iPad is $499 (for the base model) and not only has book reading functionality, but video, e-mail, a better web experience, it has a calender, contacts, etc. Yes, the Kindle gets better battery life... no argument there. And a screen that's a lot better to read on than an iPad/Pod/Phone. That's one of the biggest features.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jan 31, 2010 -> 10:35 PM) It's damn good, isn't it? I think i prefer the more hook-based songs like Got Nuffin and Written in Reverse becasue they're as classic Spoon as you're going to get, but the whole album is really solid. Yeah, another great album overall. First day I had it I listened to it a good 4 or 5 times in a row.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 31, 2010 -> 01:06 AM) That would be a pro-life ad. "Don't abort that baby just because you got drunk and screwed half the basketball team, it could grow up to be famous like I did", says your hero. No, I mean an ad actively promoting promiscuous sex and pregnancy outside of committed relationships because, hey, you never know! You kid could be a star! It makes as much sense as the logic behind this ad.

Warner is a HOF to me. His post season numbers make a very strong case.

How about someone runs an anti-abstinence ad featuring some hero who was born out of wedlock?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 04:52 PM) Seriously, this is what people waste their time on. Why do we, as a country, waste our time outlawing a plant?

Oh for the love of god no. There are so many things wrong with him.

For as much bulls*** as Obama packed in to 70 minutes or so, McConnell blew him away in only 10.

I'm still trying to figure out what purpose or need this device is trying to fulfill. It's not enough for any business use and its not enough for social use. What is their target market here? How is this better than a netbook?

I'd like to see something come of his nuclear comment. So far, the only policy I've seen come from his administration on that issue was to close Yucca.