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

oldtimer wrong again!

Help Support Ranchers.net:

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
Some time back March 15. 2011 to be exact made this prediction,,,, of course he made other statements in the same post that were WRONG

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...

time sure fly's EH

http://news.yahoo.com/nrc-approves-first-nuclear-plant-3-decades-182337706.html
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Ironic how the decision to license the nuke plant in Georgia came just after a judge ruled in Obama's favor?

First one in 30 years????
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whats really ironic is that the first reactors to be authorized in 30 years did not come under the Bushies eras (while they were fighting the oil wars) but instead of under the current Presidents administration...

These have been under study for 7 years- so why didn't GW authorize them?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
My guess would be that there were no applications while Bush was president. He was a proponent of nuclear.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
BUT,BUT,BUT You said 10 to 20 yrs!!!!which would have taken it way
past your current IDOLS reign any way :D :D :
But then you said they had to be place near the coasts!!! That too was wrong..
Just wondering how you can blame Bush!!!why did it take your sweetyheart as long as it did to make it happen!!!
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Oldtimer said:
Whats really ironic is that the first reactors to be authorized in 30 years did not come under the Bushies eras (while they were fighting the oil wars) but instead of under the current Presidents administration...

These have been under study for 7 years- so why didn't GW authorize them?

On March 31, 2008, Southern Nuclear announced that it had submitted an application for a COL, a process which will take at least 3 to 4 years.


prior to June 2007 an COL application would have been impossible and two separate applications were required, with operation not guaranteed even if you had approvals for construction. the rule change combined the process,..

Two weeks after being sworn in, Bush set up a “National Energy Policy Development Group”

The panel, 10 weeks after being organized, issued its report declaring how it “supports the expansion of nuclear energy in the United States.” The National Energy Policy plan would substantially increase the use of nuclear power in the US both by building new nuclear power plants—many to be constructed on existing nuclear plant sites—and extending the 40-year licenses of currently operating plants by another 20 years.

“One-step” licensing allows the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to hold a single hearing for a “combined construction and operating license.” No longer can nuclear plant projects be slowed down or stopped at a separate operating license proceeding

at least he changed the rules to allow it to happen...

and again.. I thank you for "praising Obama for continuing another Bush policy.. ain't it ironic the only thing Obama gets praised for is Bush's policy decisions..
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
Dang oldtimer it must really hurt to be proven so wrong soooo many times in your task to try and blame BUSH,,, and then be proven wrong all the time
experts call your lack of comprehension MENTAL RETARDATION..
It is not BUSH"S fault,,but the good LORD will forgive you for not being able to get a grip on reality as will those of us who know you!
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
4,365
Reaction score
0
Location
Heart of Texas
Five years ago, George Bush became the first American president to visit a nuclear-power plant in 30 years. In 2007 Congress voted to fund a federal loan guarantee for the construction of new ones. In January Barack Obama embraced his predecessor’s vision, pledging to build a “new generation of safe, clean nuclear-power plants”. On February 1st he followed that up in his proposed budget for 2011 by tripling to $54 billion the value of loans for new nuclear plants the government is offering to guarantee.

Yet America’s much-predicted nuclear renaissance has yet to occur. On October 8th Constellation Energy, a power company, gave up trying to persuade the government to reduce its proposed fee for a loan guarantee for a planned nuclear plant on Chesapeake Bay. The government’s price “would clearly destroy…the economics of any nuclear project,” grumbled the firm. Experts now predict that the project, a joint venture with EDF, a French state-controlled electricity giant, will die.

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a trade association, blames the breakdown of negotiations with Constellation on “a ridiculous formulaic approach” by the White House Office of Management and Budget, which considered the Chesapeake Bay plant a very risky project. Despite this, the NEI sees “no evidence of a lack of commitment by the administration”. Others are not so sure. Some suspect that Mr Obama’s earlier nuke-boosting was a ploy to win Republican support (which never materialised) for a climate bill.
 

Latest posts

Top