• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

hey oldtimer

Help Support Ranchers.net:

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
old timer wrote

How many years do you think it will be before another nuclear reactor electric power plant is licensed/allowed in the US

I'm saying 10-20 years.....
As usual your are wrong

Understand Palo Verde was just re approved thru 2047 and re licensed!!!

Wanna make a rebuttal to your uninformed statement???


EHHHHHHH????
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
6,060
Reaction score
0
Location
The Dark Side
Hoppy...DIDN'T YOU HEAR????? :shock:

Old Methuselah doesn't have time to rebut or apologize right now. Barry hired him to locate his "missing" birth certificate! Methuselah claimed to have seen Barry's BC, so it ought to be right where he left it......right? :wink: :wink:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
not to add fuel to the fire... but,..

The only reactor currently under construction in America, at Watts Bar, Tennessee, was begun in 1973 and may be completed in 2012.

As of March 9, 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission had received applications for permission to construct 26 new nuclear power reactors[79] with applications for another 7 expected.[80][81] Six of these reactors have actually been ordered.[82] In addition, the Tennessee Valley Authority petitioned to restart construction on the first two units at Bellefonte.

Georgia Power's Vogtle NPP.[87] If the project goes forward, these would be the first plants built in the United States since the 1970s.

Other than the Vogtle project, ground has been broken on just one other reactor, in South Carolina, as of September 2010.

sadly the outlook for energy Independence in our country is growing dim..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
How many years do you think it will be before another nuclear reactor electric power plant is licensed/allowed in the US

I'm saying 10-20 years.....

Isn't Palo Verde an already licensed/operating facility?- been operating for over 20 years?.... Another means new ones...

I think Steve is right-on any new constructions- I look for the communities to scream "not in my back yard" and now with the help of the public and the courts- they won't be allowed....
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
There are NO new coal fired plants being applied for or liscensed after 2018. None.

Can't blame them though. Buckwheat said he was gonna bankrupt them..........

Nuclear & Natural Gas are the only options. Yes, we can always go back to burning candles.............................................

With all the nuclear powered ships we have in the oceans, looks like the greenies would see that US Reactors are relatively safe.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Mike said:
With all the nuclear powered ships we have in the oceans, looks like the greenies would see that US Reactors are relatively safe.

the military's record with reactors has been good, most of the reactor incidents were at a training/experimental facility in Idaho,

while I am seldom in favor of expanding the governments role in industry/utilities, maybe the answer is to have the Navy build and run the reactors..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Steve said:
Mike said:
With all the nuclear powered ships we have in the oceans, looks like the greenies would see that US Reactors are relatively safe.

the military's record with reactors has been good, most of the reactor incidents were at a training/experimental facility in Idaho,

while I am seldom in favor of expanding the governments role in industry/utilities, maybe the answer is to have the Navy build and run the reactors..

Some of the most liberal members of society don't even realize they are living beside nuclear reactors as they sit in harbour.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Steve said:
Mike said:
With all the nuclear powered ships we have in the oceans, looks like the greenies would see that US Reactors are relatively safe.

the military's record with reactors has been good, most of the reactor incidents were at a training/experimental facility in Idaho,

while I am seldom in favor of expanding the governments role in industry/utilities, maybe the answer is to have the Navy build and run the reactors..

Electric Boat (EB) & Westinghouse do a good job of building reactors. Just make sure all the operators have gone through the Navy "Nuke" school.

The Westinghouse AP1000 reactor is probably the safest anywhere.

My son went through the Nuke Navy school in Charleston, SC and was based in Groton on the USS San Juan. He says there's no way that reactor can melt down with all the backups they have.

Remember, the Reactors in Japan melted because the Tsunami water shut down power going to the coolant pumps. I'm surprised there was no backup for that. :???: But then again, GE engineered that project, didn't they?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Mike said:
Steve said:
Mike said:
With all the nuclear powered ships we have in the oceans, looks like the greenies would see that US Reactors are relatively safe.

the military's record with reactors has been good, most of the reactor incidents were at a training/experimental facility in Idaho,

while I am seldom in favor of expanding the governments role in industry/utilities, maybe the answer is to have the Navy build and run the reactors..

Electric Boat (EB) & Westinghouse do a good job of building reactors. Just make sure all the operators have gone through the Navy "Nuke" school.

The Westinghouse AP1000 reactor is probably the safest anywhere.

My son went through the Nuke Navy school in Charleston, SC and was based in Groton on the USS San Juan. He says there's no way that reactor can melt down with all the backups they have.

Remember, the Reactors in Japan melted because the Tsunami water shut down power going to the coolant pumps. I'm surprised there was no backup for that. :???: But then again, GE engineered that project, didn't they?

I was a bit shocked by the lack of a redundant cooling/power system..
while I am not sure of the specifics I think they did have backup generators, and were inop.. but anything can be fixed..

with that said.. why not just bring in another generator or back up pump.. I realize they are massive.. but you can bring in several smaller generators that will do the same load requirements.. if your going to run nukes.. you should be prepared for the worse. the reactors need cooling. and they need power..

I feel there had to be not only a design defect, but an operation error for it to go so badly..
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,037
Reaction score
255
Location
Big Muddy valley
Steve said:
Mike said:
Steve said:
the military's record with reactors has been good, most of the reactor incidents were at a training/experimental facility in Idaho,

while I am seldom in favor of expanding the governments role in industry/utilities, maybe the answer is to have the Navy build and run the reactors..

Electric Boat (EB) & Westinghouse do a good job of building reactors. Just make sure all the operators have gone through the Navy "Nuke" school.

The Westinghouse AP1000 reactor is probably the safest anywhere.

My son went through the Nuke Navy school in Charleston, SC and was based in Groton on the USS San Juan. He says there's no way that reactor can melt down with all the backups they have.

Remember, the Reactors in Japan melted because the Tsunami water shut down power going to the coolant pumps. I'm surprised there was no backup for that. :???: But then again, GE engineered that project, didn't they?

I was a bit shocked by the lack of a redundant cooling/power system..
while I am not sure of the specifics I think they did have backup generators, and were inop.. but anything can be fixed..

with that said.. why not just bring in another generator or back up pump.. I realize they are massive.. but you can bring in several smaller generators that will do the same load requirements.. if your going to run nukes.. you should be prepared for the worse. the reactors need cooling. and they need power..

I feel there had to be not only a design defect, but an operation error for it to go so badly..

I'm pretty sure I heard that it was the line came in over head to the plant not buried so they got took down with the tsunami. :?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Hell, they are a "Power Generating Plant". Electricity should be RIGHT-THERE!!!

Maybe they should install a "Steam/Turbine Driven" coolant pump?????

They can always make hot water............
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Big Muddy rancher said:
Steve said:
Mike said:
Electric Boat (EB) & Westinghouse do a good job of building reactors. Just make sure all the operators have gone through the Navy "Nuke" school.

The Westinghouse AP1000 reactor is probably the safest anywhere.

My son went through the Nuke Navy school in Charleston, SC and was based in Groton on the USS San Juan. He says there's no way that reactor can melt down with all the backups they have.

Remember, the Reactors in Japan melted because the Tsunami water shut down power going to the coolant pumps. I'm surprised there was no backup for that. :???: But then again, GE engineered that project, didn't they?

I was a bit shocked by the lack of a redundant cooling/power system..
while I am not sure of the specifics I think they did have backup generators, and were inop.. but anything can be fixed..

with that said.. why not just bring in another generator or back up pump.. I realize they are massive.. but you can bring in several smaller generators that will do the same load requirements.. if your going to run nukes.. you should be prepared for the worse. the reactors need cooling. and they need power..

I feel there had to be not only a design defect, but an operation error for it to go so badly..

I'm pretty sure I heard that it was the line came in over head to the plant not buried so they got took down with the tsunami. :?

Electrical generators intended to run cooling systems in case of an emergency failed at three reactors at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plant

the diesel generators were apparently swamped and the battery banks failed as well.

but it wasn't until days afterwords that they focused on the power lines to get power back up... a large generators trucked in would have been quicker..
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Mike said:
Hell, they are a "Power Generating Plant". Electricity should be RIGHT-THERE!!!

Maybe they should install a "Steam/Turbine Driven" coolant pump?????

They can always make hot water............

the reactors shut down automatically in these events

as for the steam driven cooling pump.. sometimes the obvious is to easy...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
There are NO new coal fired plants being applied for or liscensed after 2018. None.

Can't blame them though. Buckwheat said he was gonna bankrupt them..........

Nuclear & Natural Gas are the only options. Yes, we can always go back to burning candles.............................................

With all the nuclear powered ships we have in the oceans, looks like the greenies would see that US Reactors are relatively safe.

And according to all the energy executives and financial folks who testified in the Congressional Energy hearings back during the Bush reign--- you will not see any major expansion of any alternative or even carbon based fuels until the Congress pass's a long term Energy Bill-- laying out the groundwork/rules/roadmap they can work under for the next 20-30-50- 75-85 years.... They won't invest in any long term plan that EPA, or the Courts, or ever changing Administrations can whip away or change with the stroke of a pen...
Interestingly during those hearings- the number 1 supporter/proponent of more nuclear power was Jimmy Carter....Who also brought up the fact that if Congress had passed a long term energy plan when he was President- we would no longer be held hostage to the whims of the foreign cartels/governments....
But the current partisan politicians (of both cults) that are sold out to every lobbyiest there is (Big Oil, foreign oil, ethanol, coal, wind, solar, nuclear,hydro, greenies, etc., etc, can't come to an agreement and still keep their lobbyiest pocket stuffers happy)... And that keeping their pockets stuffed seems to be their primary concern- rather than what is the best long term plan for the country.....
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
There are NO new coal fired plants being applied for or liscensed after 2018. None.

Can't blame them though. Buckwheat said he was gonna bankrupt them..........

Nuclear & Natural Gas are the only options. Yes, we can always go back to burning candles.............................................

With all the nuclear powered ships we have in the oceans, looks like the greenies would see that US Reactors are relatively safe.

And according to all the energy executives and financial folks who testified in the Congressional Energy hearings back during the Bush reign--- you will not see any major expansion of any alternative or even carbon based fuels until the Congress pass's a long term Energy Bill-- laying out the groundwork/rules/roadmap they can work under for the next 20-30-50- 75-85 years.... They won't invest in any long term plan that EPA, or the Courts, or ever changing Administrations can whip away or change with the stroke of a pen...
Interestingly during those hearings- the number 1 supporter/proponent of more nuclear power was Jimmy Carter....Who also brought up the fact that if Congress had passed a long term energy plan when he was President- we would no longer be held hostage to the whims of the foreign cartels/governments....
But the current partisan politicians (of both cults) that are sold out to every lobbyiest there is (Big Oil, foreign oil, ethanol, coal, wind, solar, nuclear,hydro, greenies, etc., etc, can't come to an agreement and still keep their lobbyiest pocket stuffers happy)... And that keeping their pockets stuffed seems to be their primary concern- rather than what is the best long term plan for the country.....

Anything that can be conceived & passed by Congress or an Administration can be wiped away by the next one coming in.

We somehow knew this would be Bush's fault.

Yea boy. Jimmy Carter gave us the Dept of Energy to build a roadmap plan for future Energy. Where did that get us? A money sucking pit. That's what. :roll:

I spose you took notes on ALL of the energy executives that testified, huh? :lol:

You DID say ALL!!!!!!!
You're such a damn liar.......................................................
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
There are NO new coal fired plants being applied for or liscensed after 2018. None.

Can't blame them though. Buckwheat said he was gonna bankrupt them..........

Nuclear & Natural Gas are the only options. Yes, we can always go back to burning candles.............................................

With all the nuclear powered ships we have in the oceans, looks like the greenies would see that US Reactors are relatively safe.

And according to all the energy executives and financial folks who testified in the Congressional Energy hearings back during the Bush reign--- you will not see any major expansion of any alternative or even carbon based fuels until the Congress pass's a long term Energy Bill-- laying out the groundwork/rules/roadmap they can work under for the next 20-30-50- 75-85 years.... They won't invest in any long term plan that EPA, or the Courts, or ever changing Administrations can whip away or change with the stroke of a pen...
Interestingly during those hearings- the number 1 supporter/proponent of more nuclear power was Jimmy Carter....Who also brought up the fact that if Congress had passed a long term energy plan when he was President- we would no longer be held hostage to the whims of the foreign cartels/governments....
But the current partisan politicians (of both cults) that are sold out to every lobbyiest there is (Big Oil, foreign oil, ethanol, coal, wind, solar, nuclear,hydro, greenies, etc., etc, can't come to an agreement and still keep their lobbyiest pocket stuffers happy)... And that keeping their pockets stuffed seems to be their primary concern- rather than what is the best long term plan for the country.....


Wasn't one of the main reasons you voted for obama was because he had an energy plan?

How do you like the value of the dollar and the price of energy now?

If the Federal Government had less power would the lobbiests have as much purchased influence?

Don't you think Government is getting to "big"? How's government intervention in the free market working out for you?


Have you figured out what "regulatory capture" is, yet?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
There are NO new coal fired plants being applied for or liscensed after 2018. None.

Can't blame them though. Buckwheat said he was gonna bankrupt them..........

Nuclear & Natural Gas are the only options. Yes, we can always go back to burning candles.............................................

With all the nuclear powered ships we have in the oceans, looks like the greenies would see that US Reactors are relatively safe.

And according to all the energy executives and financial folks who testified in the Congressional Energy hearings back during the Bush reign--- you will not see any major expansion of any alternative or even carbon based fuels until the Congress pass's a long term Energy Bill-- laying out the groundwork/rules/roadmap they can work under for the next 20-30-50- 75-85 years.... They won't invest in any long term plan that EPA, or the Courts, or ever changing Administrations can whip away or change with the stroke of a pen...
Interestingly during those hearings- the number 1 supporter/proponent of more nuclear power was Jimmy Carter....Who also brought up the fact that if Congress had passed a long term energy plan when he was President- we would no longer be held hostage to the whims of the foreign cartels/governments....
But the current partisan politicians (of both cults) that are sold out to every lobbyiest there is (Big Oil, foreign oil, ethanol, coal, wind, solar, nuclear,hydro, greenies, etc., etc, can't come to an agreement and still keep their lobbyiest pocket stuffers happy)... And that keeping their pockets stuffed seems to be their primary concern- rather than what is the best long term plan for the country.....

Anything that can be conceived & passed by Congress or an Administration can be wiped away by the next one coming in.

We somehow knew this would be Bush's fault.

Yea boy. Jimmy Carter gave us the Dept of Energy to build a roadmap plan for future Energy. Where did that get us? A money sucking pit. That's what. :roll:

I spose you took notes on ALL of the energy executives that testified, huh? :lol:

You DID say ALL!!!!!!!
You're such a damn liar.......................................................

Call all the names you want...

So why have the Congress not done away with Nixons EPA-- that was given almost unlimited authority over everything dealing with energy development, the enviroment, and health.... :???:

The reason is- Congress vary rarely overturns themselves (makes them look bad) - and in most major policy situations it takes a supermajority to do so....The EPA-- which is one of the major obstacles to energy development is supposed to work under the guidance of Congress--and maybe could effectively do so-- but Congress hasn't given them any long term guidance- and without that- they become a lawmaker/policymaker just under the powers the Nixon promoted law and the Courts have given them....
One of the reasons every President since Nixon- starting with Carter- have tried to get a long term energy/enviromental plan put into place-- so Congress actually had control of the powers given EPA as was the original plan....But so far that has not occurred....

Would you invest several million/billion $ into a long term energy project- without Congressional backing that EPA wouldn't come up with a rule/ruling to make it unworkable within a few years.... :???:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
Oldtimer said:
How many years do you think it will be before another nuclear reactor electric power plant is licensed/allowed in the US

I'm saying 10-20 years.....

Isn't Palo Verde an already licensed/operating facility?- been operating for over 20 years?.... Another means new ones...

I think Steve is right-on any new constructions- I look for the communities to scream "not in my back yard" and now with the help of the public and the courts- they won't be allowed....

Is not a re issuance a NEW one??????? :wink: :wink: :wink:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
And according to all the energy executives and financial folks who testified in the Congressional Energy hearings back during the Bush reign--- you will not see any major expansion of any alternative or even carbon based fuels until the Congress pass's a long term Energy Bill-- laying out the groundwork/rules/roadmap they can work under for the next 20-30-50- 75-85 years.... They won't invest in any long term plan that EPA, or the Courts, or ever changing Administrations can whip away or change with the stroke of a pen...
Interestingly during those hearings- the number 1 supporter/proponent of more nuclear power was Jimmy Carter....Who also brought up the fact that if Congress had passed a long term energy plan when he was President- we would no longer be held hostage to the whims of the foreign cartels/governments....
But the current partisan politicians (of both cults) that are sold out to every lobbyiest there is (Big Oil, foreign oil, ethanol, coal, wind, solar, nuclear,hydro, greenies, etc., etc, can't come to an agreement and still keep their lobbyiest pocket stuffers happy)... And that keeping their pockets stuffed seems to be their primary concern- rather than what is the best long term plan for the country.....

Anything that can be conceived & passed by Congress or an Administration can be wiped away by the next one coming in.

We somehow knew this would be Bush's fault.

Yea boy. Jimmy Carter gave us the Dept of Energy to build a roadmap plan for future Energy. Where did that get us? A money sucking pit. That's what. :roll:

I spose you took notes on ALL of the energy executives that testified, huh? :lol:

You DID say ALL!!!!!!!
You're such a damn liar.......................................................

Call all the names you want...

So why have the Congress not done away with Nixons EPA-- that was given almost unlimited authority over everything dealing with energy development, the enviroment, and health.... :???:

The reason is- Congress vary rarely overturns themselves (makes them look bad) - and in most major policy situations it takes a supermajority to do so....The EPA-- which is one of the major obstacles to energy development is supposed to work under the guidance of Congress--and maybe could effectively do so-- but Congress hasn't given them any long term guidance- and without that- they become a lawmaker/policymaker just under the powers the Nixon promoted law and the Courts have given them....
One of the reasons every President since Nixon- starting with Carter- have tried to get a long term energy/enviromental plan put into place-- so Congress actually had control of the powers given EPA as was the original plan....But so far that has not occurred....

Would you invest several million/billion $ into a long term energy project- without Congressional backing that EPA wouldn't come up with a rule/ruling to make it unworkable within a few years.... :???:

putting all the bickering aside.. (and blame)

has the candidate you voted for submitted a comprehensive energy policy... after all he had a majority in both houses.. what is his excuse?

so far the only policy I have seen in the last two years is an obstructionist president..

but I might be wrong.. does Obama have an energy policy ?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve-- I think in the last 3 years there have been multiple long term energy/enviro bills in both houses of Congress--but in the partisan bickering they have taken a back burner to trying to keep the economy afloat after the Bush Bust and another 40+ year problem which was (prior to the Bush Bust) the number 1 issue of the voters-- Healthcare and Healthcare Insurance ...
 

Latest posts

Top