PDA

View Full Version : General Politics How long would it take to license and build 40+ Nuclear Power Plants in the US????


Logical
10-15-2008, 11:14 PM
Poll to follow.

Why do you feel the way you have responded?

Taco John
10-15-2008, 11:20 PM
beats me.

patteeu
10-15-2008, 11:42 PM
At this point in time, it can't really be done in the US (or it would have by now). I'm fairly confident that if Obama is elected, it won't be done any time soon.

Ultra Peanut
10-16-2008, 12:12 AM
A long goddamned time, no matter how nice it would be.

At this point in time, it can't really be done in the US (or it would have by now). I'm fairly confident that if Obama is elected, it won't be done any time soon.Yay, more bald-faced lies from Pat! Obama has unequivocally stated that he supports nuclear power. Considering the fact that this was during the primaries, and any Democrat expressing anything more than lukewarm support for nuclear power runs the risk of being firebombed by fringe groups, that was pretty fucking emphatic.

Logical
10-16-2008, 12:23 AM
All I know is McCain was in an unbalanced state of mind if he thinks 40+ Nuclear plants can be licensed and built in 4 years.

patteeu
10-16-2008, 12:39 AM
A long goddamned time, no matter how nice it would be.

Yay, more bald-faced lies from Pat! Obama has unequivocally stated that he supports nuclear power. Considering the fact that this was during the primaries, and any Democrat expressing anything more than lukewarm support for nuclear power runs the risk of being firebombed by fringe groups, that was pretty ****ing emphatic.

Link to this unequivocal statement? He talks about "looking at" nuclear power, but he also lays out several roadblocks he sees to relying more heavily on nuclear energy:

[T]here is no future for expanded nuclear without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and
waste, waste storage, and proliferation. - BarackObama.com

That's not what we call "unequivocal". Any one of those hurdles gives Obama the out he's counting on. I'm sticking with my original bald-faced assessment of the real Obama.

patteeu
10-16-2008, 12:42 AM
All I know is McCain was in an unbalanced state of mind if he thinks 40+ Nuclear plants can be licensed and built in 4 years.

While he did say that in answer to the 4 year question, you'd have to be a crackhead to believe he actually meant that he could finish that initiative before his first term ended. My interpretation is that he'd launch the initiative and clear the obstacles in his first term.

Ultra Peanut
10-16-2008, 12:44 AM
While he did say that in answer to the 4 year question, you'd have to be a crackhead to believe he actually meant that he could finish that initiative before his first term ended. My interpretation is that he'd launch the initiative and clear the obstacles in his first term.Months ago, he said we'd have 15+ new plants by 2013 if he were elected president. He's way the fuck off when it comes to the timetable.

Logical
10-16-2008, 12:44 AM
While he did say that in answer to the 4 year question, you'd have to be a crackhead to believe he actually meant that he could finish that initiative before his first term ended. My interpretation is that he'd launch the initiative and clear the obstacles in his first term.As McCain said you have to listen to what he said. While your assertion is reasonable it did not match his words. This right after he had castigated BO about his words.

Mecca
10-16-2008, 12:46 AM
40 nuclear power plants!

http://www.geocities.com/denniverse/politics/mccain_buggin.gif

triple
10-16-2008, 12:48 AM
Why is it that when someone says a good idea will take a long time to implement, that means it's not a good idea anymore?

If we'd had the foresight to be building these 20 years ago, we'd be reaping the benefits today.

Should there be a name for this? Dopehead politics? "I know this show sucks, but maaaan... the remote's all the way over there..."

Mecca
10-16-2008, 12:49 AM
Why is it that when someone says a good idea will take a long time to implement, that means it's not a good idea anymore?

If we'd had the foresight to be building these 20 years ago, we'd be reaping the benefits today.

Should there be a name for this? Dopehead politics? "I know this show sucks, but maaaan... the remote's all the way over there..."

It's kind of the point that he flipped out on Obama for doing the same thing, does he have alzheimers or somethin?

WoodDraw
10-16-2008, 12:59 AM
At this point in time, it can't really be done in the US (or it would have by now). I'm fairly confident that if Obama is elected, it won't be done any time soon.

I'm not sure that's true. Politically, you're probably right. The US doesn't have the political environment right now to encourage fast tracked nuclear energy. It's expensive, needs high regulation, and doesn't have the big industry support that coal, oil, and ethanol enjoy.

But, given the right supporters, nuclear energy could make drastic inroads into our energy production. The fact that it hasn't been done doesn't mean it can't be done - just that no one has cared enough yet to allow it.

With Obama as President will it? Probably not. I don't think we'll see much change from the current administration. Wouldn't surprise me to see it thrown in to an energy bill as a bone to Republicans and supportive Democrats, assuming that those people keep enough seats in Congress to remain relevant.

patteeu
10-16-2008, 07:08 AM
I'm not sure that's true. Politically, you're probably right. The US doesn't have the political environment right now to encourage fast tracked nuclear energy. It's expensive, needs high regulation, and doesn't have the big industry support that coal, oil, and ethanol enjoy.

But, given the right supporters, nuclear energy could make drastic inroads into our energy production. The fact that it hasn't been done doesn't mean it can't be done - just that no one has cared enough yet to allow it.

With Obama as President will it? Probably not. I don't think we'll see much change from the current administration. Wouldn't surprise me to see it thrown in to an energy bill as a bone to Republicans and supportive Democrats, assuming that those people keep enough seats in Congress to remain relevant.

Yes, I was talking about political impossibility so we're pretty much in agreement. While I could see some nominal movement on nuclear power under an Obama administration (perhaps as a bone to Republicans as you contemplate), I can't see the kind of big push into nuclear that it would take to get a program intended to lead to 40+ new nuclear reactors getting started.

RaiderH8r
10-16-2008, 08:18 AM
Yes, I was talking about political impossibility so we're pretty much in agreement. While I could see some nominal movement on nuclear power under an Obama administration (perhaps as a bone to Republicans as you contemplate), I can't see the kind of big push into nuclear that it would take to get a program intended to lead to 40+ new nuclear reactors getting started.

I love the Barry energy plan, 90% of its principles are lifted from what Republicans have been trying to accomplish for the past 20 years. The only part of that plan that comes from Barry are the equivocationis.

Bottom line is that Barry's party has not just incidentally opposed but actively opposed as part of their party platform, as one of the defining principles of their party, expansion of energy production in the US. For Barry to come along now and try to middle on the issue is insulting to my intelligence and anybody buying that snake oil should re-examine exactly which party it is Barry works for and what they've done to put the brakes on domestic energy development.

tiptap
10-16-2008, 08:28 AM
Since he prioritized Energy reform first then it won't be much of a problem to see Obama President on this front for even you.

Amnorix
10-16-2008, 11:01 AM
Currently it's a regulatory and political impossibility.

What ought to happen is a special commission or something that can blaze right through the path of all local and federal regulatory hurdles to help make it happen.

Donger
10-16-2008, 11:18 AM
They should just take a bunch of mothballed boomers, tow them to select places around the country and feed them into the grid.

Easy.

triple
10-16-2008, 11:28 AM
I assumed it mostly amounted to NIMBY.

We need to to streamline this regulatory process so they can actually be built. I have one guess who would more aggressively take on environmentalist nuts and regulatory bureaucrats to make that happen and it's not Obama.

whoman69
10-16-2008, 12:44 PM
I love the Barry energy plan, 90% of its principles are lifted from what Republicans have been trying to accomplish for the past 20 years. The only part of that plan that comes from Barry are the equivocationis.

Bottom line is that Barry's party has not just incidentally opposed but actively opposed as part of their party platform, as one of the defining principles of their party, expansion of energy production in the US. For Barry to come along now and try to middle on the issue is insulting to my intelligence and anybody buying that snake oil should re-examine exactly which party it is Barry works for and what they've done to put the brakes on domestic energy development.

Obama's position is nowhere near the Republican position for the last 20 years. In that time they have adamantly backed Detroit in opposition to increased fuel standards. This despite the fact that Detroit had plenty of money to engineer tons of SUV and pickup designs. Now they can't give them away and are going bankrupt again. When will it be time for another bailout?
Republicans have also blocked legislation at alternative energies. Their energies have been to back the oil companies to make even more money, nothing to solve the long term problem. Despite lack of government backing, great strides have been made in wind and solar power as well as other green energy solutions. Republicans are only interested in keeping their gas tanks full.

bkkcoh
10-16-2008, 12:45 PM
NIMBY, you can't get 40 nuclear power plants far enough from where people live in the US.

My guess is, it aint gonna happen

triple
10-16-2008, 12:49 PM
NIMBY, you can't get 40 nuclear power plants far enough from where people live in the US.

My guess is, it aint gonna happen

In my opinion, Obama is just talking about it, and won't actually do anything. The manifold qualifications on his campaign promise will be his 'out'

I don't think that the Democrat party cares a bit about this energy crisis. They like that oil being expensive forces people to use it less, they like funneling money to these alternative energy boondoggles like ethanol and companies that lavish them with donations or in which they are big investors.

If river bend (LA) is still the newest nuclear plant in the country, the newest is more than 20 years old, I doubt Obama will make any serious effort to change that.

We can't "generate energy" our way out of this energy problem, I guess.

noa
10-16-2008, 12:55 PM
I love how McCain's rebuttal to Obama's stance on nuclear energy is that Obama supports it, but he wants to to be "safe." He's using those eloquent words again to qualify his stance. As if that's some sort of cockamamie position. Requiring safety when dealing with radioactive waste that will remain a hazard for hundreds of thousands of years. Why would we want it to be safe?

I haven't done any research about it, but when McCain says we can build 40 nuclear plants, do we actually know where we are going to store the waste?

triple
10-16-2008, 12:58 PM
I love how McCain's rebuttal to Obama's stance on nuclear energy is that Obama supports it, but he wants to to be "safe." He's using those eloquent words again to qualify his stance. As if that's some sort of cockamamie position. Requiring safety when dealing with radioactive waste that will remain a hazard for hundreds of thousands of years. Why would we want it to be safe?

I haven't done any research about it, but when McCain says we can build 40 nuclear plants, do we actually know where we are going to store the waste?

he has mentioned he wants us to reprocess it, but for some reason we don't allow that to happen now. it makes each unit of fuel exponentially more productive and produces much less dangerous waste.

several other countries do it, i think it was outlawed here in the 70s.

noa
10-16-2008, 01:18 PM
he has mentioned he wants us to reprocess it, but for some reason we don't allow that to happen now. it makes each unit of fuel exponentially more productive and produces much less dangerous waste.

several other countries do it, i think it was outlawed here in the 70s.

Thanks, I guess I should read more about reprocessing.

I'm just afraid of proposals I've seen in the past where we will build a place to store the waste for 100 years, until we figure out what we really are going to do with it long term.

StcChief
10-16-2008, 01:30 PM
but to get the Wind, Solar, "clean" (Obama dirty word) coal will take how long????
to reduce our dependance on Camelhumpers...

and no drilling IMBY approach wont help either.....

I guess we're F'ed to $5+ dollar gas in a year or two.

triple
10-16-2008, 01:35 PM
Thanks, I guess I should read more about reprocessing.

I'm just afraid of proposals I've seen in the past where we will build a place to store the waste for 100 years, until we figure out what we really are going to do with it long term.

they are trying to build a place at yucca mountain, but it's been tied up in NIMBY for a decade, though i'm not sure whose backyard yucca mountain is.

ironically, this is causing waste to be stored in less safe conditions in casks - which are safe, but not as safe as a dedicated disposal facility would be.

mlyonsd
10-16-2008, 01:48 PM
I voted for never. Unless we can strap nuclear waste to the backs of illegal immigrants we're deporting we'll never come to an agreement as a people where to store the stuff.

patteeu
10-16-2008, 01:53 PM
I love how McCain's rebuttal to Obama's stance on nuclear energy is that Obama supports it, but he wants to to be "safe." He's using those eloquent words again to qualify his stance. As if that's some sort of cockamamie position. Requiring safety when dealing with radioactive waste that will remain a hazard for hundreds of thousands of years. Why would we want it to be safe?

I haven't done any research about it, but when McCain says we can build 40 nuclear plants, do we actually know where we are going to store the waste?

I think you're looking at this thing backward. It should go without saying that support for nuclear power is support for "safe" nuclear power. The only reason to add the qualifier is if you're actually against nuclear power in it's current form.

Dick Bull
10-16-2008, 01:53 PM
I love how McCain's rebuttal to Obama's stance on nuclear energy is that Obama supports it, but he wants to to be "safe." He's using those eloquent words again to qualify his stance. As if that's some sort of cockamamie position. Requiring safety when dealing with radioactive waste that will remain a hazard for hundreds of thousands of years. Why would we want it to be safe?

I haven't done any research about it, but when McCain says we can build 40 nuclear plants, do we actually know where we are going to store the waste?

In a van down by the river...


http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/image.php?u=136689&dateline=1138244892

triple
10-16-2008, 01:57 PM
I think you're looking at this thing backward. It should go without saying that support for nuclear power is support for "safe" nuclear power. The only reason to add the qualifier is if you're actually against nuclear power in it's current form.

boom goeth the dynamite

Chief Faithful
10-16-2008, 02:04 PM
I'm just afraid of proposals I've seen in the past where we will build a place to store the waste for 100 years, until we figure out what we really are going to do with it long term.

Waste can be stored, disposed, or reprocessed.

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0017.shtml

noa
10-16-2008, 02:24 PM
Waste can be stored, disposed, or reprocessed.

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0017.shtml

Great link. Basically, all of our plans have serious drawbacks and risks. The only one that doesn't have risks listed is reprocessing, but there isn't much overall detail on that plan.

Chief Faithful
10-16-2008, 02:32 PM
Great link. Basically, all of our plans have serious drawbacks and risks. The only one that doesn't have risks listed is reprocessing, but there isn't much overall detail on that plan.

Reprocessing is the method used by most of the world especially in Europe.

Donger
10-16-2008, 02:36 PM
Doesn't the US still have a ban in place for reprocessing?

Ultra Peanut
10-16-2008, 02:37 PM
Reprocessing definitely seems like the way to go. Other nations actually import waste to France for reprocessing, don't they?

It really disappoints me that probably 80% of Americans hear "nuclear power" and freak the fuck out. Our current fossil fuels are far less efficient and way worse for the environment, but atoms, oh no!

I like McCain's enthusiasm, but he's way too optimistic about the timetable. Obama isn't really saying FUCK YEAH I LOVE THOSE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS because, you know, those words scare people.

Baby Lee
10-16-2008, 02:40 PM
they are trying to build a place at yucca mountain, but it's been tied up in NIMBY for a decade, though i'm not sure whose backyard yucca mountain is.

ironically, this is causing waste to be stored in less safe conditions in casks - which are safe, but not as safe as a dedicated disposal facility would be.

I think it's more that the train tracks and interstates TO YM are in Vegas' 'back yard.'

Programmer
10-16-2008, 02:43 PM
All I know is McCain was in an unbalanced state of mind if he thinks 40+ Nuclear plants can be licensed and built in 4 years.

The queston put to him was regarding the first term, but he made it clear that what he was saying was not in that time frame. It seems like it took 7 years to build the Wolf Creek plant. It started operation in 1985.

My follow up question to you would be: How many years do we wait for a new and renewable alternative power source? Depending upon the current regulations and conrol procedures required to build a new plant it could take up to 10 years now.

Do we sit and wait for an alternative source or do we go ahead and build? IMO opinion we should build now, I don't know if 45 is the right number, but if we don't do so now what will happen when the older plants have to be shut down? Will we then have a knee jerk reaction and start slapping new plants together and disregard safety for the sake of quick power?

Programmer
10-16-2008, 02:46 PM
he has mentioned he wants us to reprocess it, but for some reason we don't allow that to happen now. it makes each unit of fuel exponentially more productive and produces much less dangerous waste.

several other countries do it, i think it was outlawed here in the 70s.

There are plans to store it in Northern California ... next to Jim's house.

Baby Lee
10-16-2008, 02:51 PM
It really disappoints me that probably 80% of Americans hear "nuclear power" and freak the **** out. Our current fossil fuels are far less efficient and way worse for the environment, but atoms, oh no!
And fossil fuels are made of?
It's pretty much an immutable law that, unless you limit yourself to the mechanical manifestations of energy [wind, water, geothermal], the more efficient energy extraction is per unit of matter, the more dangerous the energy source is to life.
Wood is fairly benign, though you probably shouldn't eat it. Coal a little more toxic, than the 'anes,' getting more and more toxic as that carbon ring gets electromagnetically under more and more strain, increasing it's energy release potential, then you progress to radioactivity, that can mutate you up right quick.
So yeah, if we're serious about increased energy efficiency, we need to be sober about what that seriousness means. We either have to face the risk of particle potential and get to making safeguards, or get a lot more serious about harnessing mechanical manifestations of energy.

Logical
10-18-2008, 12:09 AM
I must say the distribution in this poll is pretty good. I suspect people for the most part realize the real obstacles and are not as unrealistic as John McCain.

Logical
10-18-2008, 12:11 AM
There are plans to store it in Northern California ... next to Jim's house.I am going to have a much bigger house then, as I live in San Diego suburbs.

Logical
10-18-2008, 12:13 AM
The queston put to him was regarding the first term, but he made it clear that what he was saying was not in that time frame. It seems like it took 7 years to build the Wolf Creek plant. It started operation in 1985.

My follow up question to you would be: How many years do we wait for a new and renewable alternative power source? Depending upon the current regulations and conrol procedures required to build a new plant it could take up to 10 years now.

Do we sit and wait for an alternative source or do we go ahead and build? IMO opinion we should build now, I don't know if 45 is the right number, but if we don't do so now what will happen when the older plants have to be shut down? Will we then have a knee jerk reaction and start slapping new plants together and disregard safety for the sake of quick power?I am all for starting Nuclear, clean coal, gas fired plants, wind, solar and other power means. We just have to be realistic about how fast they can be brought on line.

ClevelandBronco
10-18-2008, 12:15 AM
I am going to have a much bigger house then, as I live in San Diego suburbs.

I'd go with a really long dining room if I were you.

ClevelandBronco
10-18-2008, 12:16 AM
Maybe a lap pool if you want to do one lap.

In your life.

Logical
10-18-2008, 12:18 AM
I'd go with a really long dining room if I were you.I was thinking more on the big pool with the floating bar and all the babes hanging out 24/7.

Silock
10-18-2008, 12:40 AM
Why is it that when someone says a good idea will take a long time to implement, that means it's not a good idea anymore?

If we'd had the foresight to be building these 20 years ago, we'd be reaping the benefits today.

Should there be a name for this? Dopehead politics? "I know this show sucks, but maaaan... the remote's all the way over there..."

I'd rep you again, but I can't.

Seriously. WTF is wrong with some of you guys? We shouldn't build nuclear power plants because it will take too long. Boo hoo. We shouldn't drill off of our coast because it won't do shit for us tomorrow. Waaaaaah!

If offshore drilling were a bad idea, why would China want to do it on our doorstep? Hmm?

At some point, large, long-term projects have to be started so you can say "Wow, I'm sure glad we started that 10 years ago, or we'd be fucked now!"

Ooops, too late.

ClevelandBronco
10-18-2008, 12:49 AM
I was thinking more on the big pool with the floating bar and all the babes hanging out 24/7.

Dude. Good choice.

ClevelandBronco
10-18-2008, 12:51 AM
I'd rep you again, but I can't.

Seriously. WTF is wrong with some of you guys? We shouldn't build nuclear power plants because it will take too long. Boo hoo. We shouldn't drill off of our coast because it won't do shit for us tomorrow. Waaaaaah!

If offshore drilling were a bad idea, why would China want to do it on our doorstep? Hmm?

At some point, large, long-term projects have to be started so you can say "Wow, I'm sure glad we started that 10 years ago, or we'd be ****ed now!"

Ooops, too late.

We screwed ourselves over the last 30 years. What are 30 more when you're trying to destroy a nation?

Logical
10-18-2008, 12:53 AM
I'd rep you again, but I can't.

Seriously. WTF is wrong with some of you guys? We shouldn't build nuclear power plants because it will take too long. Boo hoo. We shouldn't drill off of our coast because it won't do shit for us tomorrow. Waaaaaah!

If offshore drilling were a bad idea, why would China want to do it on our doorstep? Hmm?

At some point, large, long-term projects have to be started so you can say "Wow, I'm sure glad we started that 10 years ago, or we'd be ****ed now!"

Ooops, too late.This thread was not meant to imply it should not be done, only that John McCain was out of his gorde saying it could be done in his first term.

orange
10-18-2008, 01:02 AM
Assuming they all started at the same time - it would take about the same amount of time as it would to license and build 1 nuclear power plant in the US.

Didn't you used to call yourself "Logical?"


Or , let's put it this way: "How long will it take to play the ten early games in the NFL some Sunday morning? 30 hours total, but they'll all be done in 3 hours."

Logical
10-18-2008, 01:25 AM
Assuming they all started at the same time - it would take about the same amount of time as it would to license and build 1 nuclear power plant in the US.

Didn't you used to call yourself "Logical?"


Or , let's put it this way: "How long will it take to play the ten early games in the NFL some Sunday morning? 30 hours total, but they'll all be done in 3 hours."Licensing and standards vary in different parts of the country. Getting the licenses will take longer than building them. They won't all be built in the same manner. You ever seen San Onofre vs 3 mile Island?

ROYC75
10-18-2008, 01:28 AM
30 + years ...... If even then. The left will probably not allow it anyways.

orange
10-18-2008, 02:25 AM
Licensing and standards vary in different parts of the country. Getting the licenses will take longer than building them. They won't all be built in the same manner. You ever seen San Onofre vs 3 mile Island?

They'll be built in nuke-friendly states. C'mon now, you know these things. Especially since a big part of the McCain plan involves opening up the regulatory bottlenecks.

It could be done.

Whether it SHOULD be done is an entirely different question.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would oppose any program of building nuclear plants because it's a dying technology. It will be rendered obsolete overnight by fusion - which is where we SHOULD be investing for America's energy future.

Building nukes now is like investing heavily - VERY HEAVILY - in the next generation of VCR's back in the '80s.

Programmer
10-18-2008, 06:28 AM
I am going to have a much bigger house then, as I live in San Diego suburbs.

There is an existing site there. Under your house.

Programmer
10-18-2008, 06:36 AM
I am all for starting Nuclear, clean coal, gas fired plants, wind, solar and other power means. We just have to be realistic about how fast they can be brought on line.

McCain basically wants to build 40 or 45 nuclear plants. The question put to him was in your first term, but gave a 10 year figure. With all of the current obstacles to building nuclear power plants, if you had sites selected, land purchased and all of them ready to start construction today it would take at least 10 years each and I doubt that there is enough manpower in the NRC to oversee each of the plants.

If we do not start building now it's the same situation as with oil, too little too late. If we would have started drilling 5, 10, or 15 years ago in all, or some, of the places we know there is oil we would be better off than we are now. If we had not have stopped building th power plants in the 80's we would not be in the same shape we are in now.

Programmer
10-18-2008, 06:37 AM
I was thinking more on the big pool with the floating bar and all the babes hanging out 24/7.

Unless you are as rich as Hefner it ain't gonna happen.

Programmer
10-18-2008, 06:40 AM
This thread was not meant to imply it should not be done, only that John McCain was out of his gorde saying it could be done in his first term.

Again you missed his statement that this would take at least 10 years. It was in response to the question regarding the first term, but he answered it using the longer time frame.

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
Suggestions for gorde:

1. garde (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/garde) 2. gourde (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gourde) 3. gorge (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gorge) 4. gourd (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gourd) 5. GERD (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/GERD) 6. grade (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grade) 7. gride (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gride) 8. Gordo (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Gordo) 9. -grade (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/-grade) 10. Gard (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Gard) 11. gird (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gird) 12. greed (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/greed) 13. gurge (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gurge) 14. George (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/George) 15. Grote (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Grote) 16. gaird (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gaird) 17. guard (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guard) 18. Gort (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Gort) 19. grad (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grad) 20. grid (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grid)</PRE>

Logical
10-18-2008, 02:02 PM
They'll be built in nuke-friendly states. C'mon now, you know these things. Especially since a big part of the McCain plan involves opening up the regulatory bottlenecks.

It could be done.

Whether it SHOULD be done is an entirely different question.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would oppose any program of building nuclear plants because it's a dying technology. It will be rendered obsolete overnight by fusion - which is where we SHOULD be investing for America's energy future.

Building nukes now is like investing heavily - VERY HEAVILY - in the next generation of VCR's back in the '80s.I don't know any Nuke friendly states, example?

Logical
10-18-2008, 02:03 PM
Again you missed his statement that this would take at least 10 years. It was in response to the question regarding the first term, but he answered it using the longer time frame.

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
Suggestions for gorde:

1. garde (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/garde) 2. gourde (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gourde) 3. gorge (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gorge) 4. gourd (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gourd) 5. GERD (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/GERD) 6. grade (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grade) 7. gride (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gride) 8. Gordo (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Gordo) 9. -grade (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/-grade) 10. Gard (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Gard) 11. gird (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gird) 12. greed (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/greed) 13. gurge (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gurge) 14. George (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/George) 15. Grote (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Grote) 16. gaird (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gaird) 17. guard (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guard) 18. Gort (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Gort) 19. grad (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grad) 20. grid (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grid)

It is not there, because it is slang, but I am sure you knew that.

2bikemike
10-18-2008, 02:21 PM
I didn't wade through the entire response of this. But from the debates neither candidate answered the question with a commital of 4 years. Both referenced 10 years.

It would take quite a while to put 40 Nuke plants on the grid. Probably 20+ years if all went well and the process started all at once and they were spread out across the country. There are all kinds of road blocks to building any power plant. You have all the environmental impact studies to deal with. You have the public to contend with. Nobody wants a power plant in their back yard.

I just witnessed a proposed peaker plant that was killed my the local community. The Plant I work at took at least 5 years of planning before it ever hit the grid and its just a Combined Cycle plant that uses Natural Gas.

NoLurkerNoMore
10-18-2008, 03:53 PM
I have no problem with nuclear power but what to do with the nuclear waste? Its highly toxic and their is no easy way to get rid off it. You can only bury it and who wants to live near a site where there do it.

orange
10-18-2008, 06:08 PM
I don't know any Nuke friendly states, example?

Why do you do this? 3 seconds with Google - that's all it takes.

Senator Obama's state would be a good example - with ELEVEN nuclear plants (and another reactor in the works).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or you could look at THIS map:

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20080924

Calcountry
10-18-2008, 06:16 PM
Cue James brown/ I FEEL GOOD, nana anananana , the way that i should.

I FEEEL NICE, nan ananana, sugar and spice,

So good, so good, aakakkakakkakakkakkakkkkka

THat's how I FEEEL.

Logical
10-18-2008, 07:05 PM
Why do you do this? 3 seconds with Google - that's all it takes.

Senator Obama's state would be a good example - with ELEVEN nuclear plants (and another reactor in the works).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or you could look at THIS map:

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20080924Interesting, it appears there are only two truly Nuclear friendly states, Illinois and Pennsylvania. All other states only have a smattering of plants.

Programmer
10-18-2008, 11:00 PM
It is not there, because it is slang, but I am sure you knew that.

I've seen slang in my life time but I've never seen that. Care to explain what it means?

Logical
10-18-2008, 11:28 PM
I've seen slang in my life time but I've never seen that. Care to explain what it means?Even if I misspelled it, it is hard to imagine you cannot figure it out.

Programmer
10-19-2008, 06:53 AM
Even if I misspelled it, it is hard to imagine you cannot figure it out.

I wanted to know what you meant by it. Slang isn't represented by a hamhanded typist misspelling something.

I don't live in the world of internet, nor do I live in the world of slang as you do. Please explain - unless you are still trying to figure out what you said, then .. by all means keep deflecting - it's your only game.