From: dsi1 on
On 4/13/2010 9:40 AM, E. Meyer wrote:
> On 4/13/10 12:01 PM, in article Xns9D59768856331chuck(a)127.0.0.1, "chuckcar"
> <chuck(a)nil.car> wrote:
>
>> AZ Nomad<aznomad.3(a)PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in
>> news:slrnhs2db9.97g.aznomad.3(a)ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net:
>>
>>> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 07:00:20 -0500, hls<hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote:
>>
>>> Probably because nobody wants a power plant that is ten thousand
>>> times more expensive per watt to operate than a standard atomic power
>>> plant and can only supply enough power to a town of 100,000.
>>>
>> No that's why the US doesn't *have* nuclear power now. No one wanted to
>> pay for proper maintenance for even the cheapest reactors.
>>
>
> The reason the US doesn't have nuclear power now is Three Mile Island. The
> panic after that resulted a mountain of bureaucracy/red tape/expense that
> has stopped nuclear power in its tracks.
>

I have a feeling that we'll be seeing more nuclear power in our future.
It's pretty much our only option for the short run. Thorium-fueled
reactors seem promising. Hopefully, more research will be done in this
area.
From: chuckcar on
"E. Meyer" <e.p.meyer(a)verizon.net> wrote in
news:C7EA32FB.1A11B%e.p.meyer(a)verizon.net:

> On 4/13/10 12:01 PM, in article Xns9D59768856331chuck(a)127.0.0.1,
> "chuckcar" <chuck(a)nil.car> wrote:
>
>> AZ Nomad <aznomad.3(a)PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in
>> news:slrnhs2db9.97g.aznomad.3(a)ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net:
>>
>>> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 07:00:20 -0500, hls <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote:
>>
>>> Probably because nobody wants a power plant that is ten thousand
>>> times more expensive per watt to operate than a standard atomic
>>> power plant and can only supply enough power to a town of 100,000.
>>>
>> No that's why the US doesn't *have* nuclear power now. No one wanted
>> to pay for proper maintenance for even the cheapest reactors.
>>
>
> The reason the US doesn't have nuclear power now is Three Mile Island.
> The panic after that resulted a mountain of bureaucracy/red
> tape/expense that has stopped nuclear power in its tracks.
>
From actually blowing a plant up yes. No to anything else you say or
imply. You can't beat the Russians at *everything* you know <g>.


--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
From: chuckcar on
AZ Nomad <aznomad.3(a)PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in
news:slrnhs9eca.b2u.aznomad.3(a)ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net:

> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:01:11 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <chuck(a)nil.car>
> wrote:
>>AZ Nomad <aznomad.3(a)PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in
>>news:slrnhs2db9.97g.aznomad.3(a)ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net:
>
>>> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 07:00:20 -0500, hls <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote:
>
>>> Probably because nobody wants a power plant that is ten thousand
>>> times more expensive per watt to operate than a standard atomic
>>> power plant and can only supply enough power to a town of 100,000.
>>>
>>No that's why the US doesn't *have* nuclear power now. No one wanted
>>to pay for proper maintenance for even the cheapest reactors.
>
> submarine reactors aren't cheap.
Woosh.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
From: jim on


"E. Meyer" wrote:
>
> On 4/13/10 12:01 PM, in article Xns9D59768856331chuck(a)127.0.0.1, "chuckcar"
> <chuck(a)nil.car> wrote:
>
> > AZ Nomad <aznomad.3(a)PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in
> > news:slrnhs2db9.97g.aznomad.3(a)ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net:
> >
> >> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 07:00:20 -0500, hls <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote:
> >
> >> Probably because nobody wants a power plant that is ten thousand
> >> times more expensive per watt to operate than a standard atomic power
> >> plant and can only supply enough power to a town of 100,000.
> >>
> > No that's why the US doesn't *have* nuclear power now. No one wanted to
> > pay for proper maintenance for even the cheapest reactors.
> >
>
> The reason the US doesn't have nuclear power now is Three Mile Island.

There is no "reason the US doesn't have nuclear power". The US has
nuclear power - more than any other country.



> The
> panic after that resulted a mountain of bureaucracy/red tape/expense that
> has stopped nuclear power in its tracks.

The only way investment in nuclear power will resume is if the federal
government guarantees the profits of the investors. After 3 mile island
the government stopped doing that and investment in nuclear energy
disappeared. If the law says that the plant owners pay for the clean up
of the next 3 mile island then no money will be invested. if the law
says taxpayers and rate payers pay for the clean up of the next 3 mile
island lots of new plants will be built. The economics is that simple.

-jim
From: E. Meyer on
On 4/14/10 7:10 AM, in article fJydndZdEexZLVjWnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d(a)bright.net,
"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote:

>
>
> "E. Meyer" wrote:
>>
>> On 4/13/10 12:01 PM, in article Xns9D59768856331chuck(a)127.0.0.1, "chuckcar"
>> <chuck(a)nil.car> wrote:
>>
>>> AZ Nomad <aznomad.3(a)PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in
>>> news:slrnhs2db9.97g.aznomad.3(a)ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 07:00:20 -0500, hls <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Probably because nobody wants a power plant that is ten thousand
>>>> times more expensive per watt to operate than a standard atomic power
>>>> plant and can only supply enough power to a town of 100,000.
>>>>
>>> No that's why the US doesn't *have* nuclear power now. No one wanted to
>>> pay for proper maintenance for even the cheapest reactors.
>>>
>>
>> The reason the US doesn't have nuclear power now is Three Mile Island.
>
> There is no "reason the US doesn't have nuclear power". The US has
> nuclear power - more than any other country.
>
>

OK. When was the last new nuclear power plant opened? Part two: Relative
to the date of the Three mile island mess, when was construction on that
last plant started?

There were some plants in the works at the time of Three Mile Island and
some of them went on to completion, but there has been little to no new
activity since then.

>
>> The
>> panic after that resulted a mountain of bureaucracy/red tape/expense that
>> has stopped nuclear power in its tracks.
>
> The only way investment in nuclear power will resume is if the federal
> government guarantees the profits of the investors. After 3 mile island
> the government stopped doing that and investment in nuclear energy
> disappeared. If the law says that the plant owners pay for the clean up
> of the next 3 mile island then no money will be invested. if the law
> says taxpayers and rate payers pay for the clean up of the next 3 mile
> island lots of new plants will be built. The economics is that simple.
>

This I agree with. Economics, at least for this sort of thing, really is
that simple.