Piketon project gets more time

Can you imagine how grand of a solar array could be made in Piketon with 2 billion dollars? The uranium enrichment plant has poisoned thousands of employees and they have been compensated. Also, the US government is on the hook incase there is major or minor accident because insurance companies will not insure nuclear facilities. Nuclear energy is costly, unsafe and unsustainable. The people of Piketon should be pushing for clean up (there is at least 20 years of work there) and demanding a major solar project. They have suffered enough!
http://www.wildclearing.com/ice-ages/pike-vin...

This is meaningless. The Obama administration is clearly not serious about addressing America's addiction to foreign energy sources, an addiction which is a threat to prosperity, stability and security. It is business as usual in Washington, with the current beneficiaries being those on the far left.

solpwr wrote:

Can you imagine how grand of a solar array could be made in Piketon with 2 billion dollars? The uranium enrichment plant has poisoned thousands of employees and they have been compensated. Also, the US government is on the hook incase there is major or minor accident because insurance companies will not insure nuclear facilities. Nuclear energy is costly, unsafe and unsustainable. The people of Piketon should be pushing for clean up (there is at least 20 years of work there) and demanding a major solar project. They have suffered enough!
http://www.wildclearing.com/ice-ages/pike-vin...

--Poisoned?! Everyone gets poisoned when they step foot outside their door! Those working outdoors get more radiation exposure from the sun!
--20 years of work left? I want to know where you get your facts from. This figure varies GREATLY on what approach the gov't chooses to utilize.
**Pike/Scioto county economies as well as schools would be CRUSHED without USEC. Nuclear power is the only SUSTAINABLE clean energy option available today. If you believe that solar power can generate enough electricity to be worthwile on a global scale, you just keep dreaming.

solpwr wrote:

Can you imagine how grand of a solar array could be made in Piketon with 2 billion dollars? The uranium enrichment plant has poisoned thousands of employees and they have been compensated. Also, the US government is on the hook incase there is major or minor accident because insurance companies will not insure nuclear facilities. Nuclear energy is costly, unsafe and unsustainable. The people of Piketon should be pushing for clean up (there is at least 20 years of work there) and demanding a major solar project. They have suffered enough!
http://www.wildclearing.com/ice-ages/pike-vin...

sorry but you are wrong, the fact is that if you built an array the size of California, you wouldn't meet one quarter of the power requirements of the state. Also, you would have those millions displaced by the array live where exactly?

solpwr wrote:

Can you imagine how grand of a solar array could be made in Piketon with 2 billion dollars? The people of Piketon should be pushing for clean up (there is at least 20 years of work there) and demanding a major solar project.
http://www.wildclearing.com/ice-ages/pike-vin...

Can you imagine how grand a boondoggle a solar power project would be in Ohio? Do you have any idea what kind of capacity factor it would have? Do you even know what a capcity factor is? With the lousy weather around here, I'm guessing maybe 20%. Then there is this inconvenient natural phenomenon called "night". Do you know what the output of a PV solar array is at night? Who in their right mind would invest in an asset that is supposed to be generating revenue but effectively sits idle 4/5s of the time? That kind of boondoggle would make them suffer much more than they have ever suffered in the past.

James B wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you imagine how grand a boondoggle a solar power project would be in Ohio? Do you have any idea what kind of capacity factor it would have? Do you even know what a capcity factor is? With the lousy weather around here, I'm guessing maybe 20%. Then there is this inconvenient natural phenomenon called "night". Do you know what the output of a PV solar array is at night? Who in their right mind would invest in an asset that is supposed to be generating revenue but effectively sits idle 4/5s of the time? That kind of boondoggle would make them suffer much more than they have ever suffered in the past.

And then there are those things that go roundy roundy in high winds. Yeah, tornadoes. Imagine the destruction of your "oh so awesome" solar array after being hit by one of those. Only upside I can see is that it would need repaired all the time producing some (20-30) jobs. Nice. Great solution. One of these days our people are going to have to wake up and smell the coffee and realize that nuclear is the only realistic option. It is far safer than generally believed by the majority out there. It is more tightly regulated and controlled than any other source of energy in use now. Come on. Get real.

Wow, advocates for a fuel that can poison you for 40,000 years. The clean up in Piketon will take 20 years if it is done right. Of course, you could send prisoners in the sites and have them work till their death (like the Russians in Chernobyl) but that would not employ anyone in Piketon. Safe clean up is what we need.
Nuclear energy is supplying 6% of Ohio's energy. By conserving (bad,bad word) we could eliminate these catastrophic time bombs and invest monies into solar and wind.
The renewable energy industry would be the largest boom to the workforce and economy if it was advocated by the government. Bigger than the space program in education and science. Nuclear is a dead industry. Can you give me any reason (except risk) why insurance companies will not insure nuclear facilities?
Yes, people died at Three Mile Island and still are.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-wasserma...

There is no way to safely mine, mill, process, use or dispose of uranium. Investigate yourself. And if you have any information that gives a glowing report about nuclear energy, please share.

Wow. Could you have found a more canted argument in your choice of articles to cite? I don't believe you could have. Mind boggling. Continue thinking as you do and being one of the lemmings. You're doing well at that.

Hey, If you have anything to share in support of nuclear energy, place it in the thread. Solar panel companies in the US are selling all their panels to Germany whom give an 80% rebate to homeowners. France is now beginning to feel the financial weigh of nuclear energy from operations,health and disposal.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationw...
Here is a calendar of nuclear accidents.
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/che...
Mind you, the earth doesn't care what we do because it will survive in any condition, it is us that have to be concerned with how we produce our energy.
Don't believe me, investigate yourself.

solpwr wrote:

Can you give me any reason (except risk) why insurance companies will not insure nuclear facilities?
Yes, people died at Three Mile Island and still are.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-wasserma...

These statements alone qualify you as clueless. You know nothing about the subject at hand. Nuclear facilities ARE insured by a private insurance pool. You can buy it from American Nuclear Insurers. It is NOT taxpayer-funded. Taxpayers don't have a dime in it. Utilities pay their own way. They are fully insured by private funds to the extent required by law, something other energy sources, some of them much more dangerous than nuclear, are not required to do.

And quoting Harvey Wasserman on nuclear matters as a reliable source is in the same league as calling Oliver Stone an unbiased expert on the Kennedy assassination. You're out there on the grassy knoll with that one.

Solpwr wrote:

Hey, If you have anything to share in support of nuclear energy, place it in the thread.... Don't believe me, investigate yourself.

I don't have to investigate it I've worked in/on/with nuclear reactors for over 20 years.

I share nothing because I have no reason to, and you have no "need to know". All you have is "want to know". But I seriously doubt that you can grasp the difference. Looking to greenpeace for answers? Talk about another highly canted source! I wouldn't buy their hogwash for the winning megamillions lottery ticket. Keep going you're proving yourself more ignorant with each post.

James B wrote:

<quoted text>
And quoting Harvey Wasserman on nuclear matters as a reliable source is in the same league as calling Oliver Stone an unbiased expert on the Kennedy assassination. You're out there on the grassy knoll with that one.

Hilarious and yet so true!!

solpwr wrote:

Can you imagine how grand of a solar array could be made in Piketon with 2 billion dollars?

Yes. It would be a drop in the bucket compared to the energy supplied by the nuclear fuel made with a centrifuge plant.

Solpwr wrote:

Hey, If you have anything to share in support of nuclear energy, place it in the thread. Solar panel companies in the US are selling all their panels to Germany whom give an 80% rebate to homeowners. France is now beginning to feel the financial weigh of nuclear energy from operations,health and disposal.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationw...
Here is a calendar of nuclear accidents.
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/che...
Mind you, the earth doesn't care what we do because it will survive in any condition, it is us that have to be concerned with how we produce our energy.
Don't believe me, investigate yourself.

Here is some good reading for you:
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/nuclear.h...

Solpwr wrote:

Solar panel companies in the US are selling all their panels to Germany whom give an 80% rebate to homeowners.

Germany gets 30% of their electricity from nuclear power. That is a higher percentage than the US. The US also produces more power from solar panels than Germany does.

Solpwr wrote:

Solar panel companies in the US are selling all their panels to Germany whom give an 80% rebate to homeowners.

Well, at least you admitted what the only thing is that makes this stuff viable. And that is, massive, massive tax breaks and subsidies from the government. Do you know how much of a "subsidy" either generators or users of nuclear energy get from the government? How about zero, none, nothing. If you build a nuclear plant, or use electricity from one, you get nothing from the government.<p>

That's not quite true. You get regulation. Did you know that the nuclear industry is the only industry in this country that is required to pay the entire cost of it's regulation by the government back to the government in full? The industry essentially pays for the "privilege" of being regulated. Radio and TV stations don't do that (FCC). Airlines and pilots don't do that (FAA). Other forms of power generation (hydro, coal, natural gas, solar, wind) don't do that (FERC). Any difference between the budget for these agencies and what is collected by them from fees and licenses is paid by, guess who, the taxpayer. The NRC budget is essentially recovered completed by fees paid by the industry. The taxpayer subsidizes almost nothing for the budget of this agency. Did you know that? I didn't think so.

James B wrote:

Did you know that the nuclear industry is the only industry in this country that is required to pay the entire cost of it's regulation by the government back to the government in full? The industry essentially pays for the "privilege" of being regulated.

Not only that, but the industry pays for the NRC "overhead". That supports medical licensees and others. Also, nuclear power plants pay local agencies for emergency preparedness, which is used primarily for unrelated emergencies, such as floods and tornados. In addition, owners of nuclear power plants pay substantial federal, state and local taxes.

DCK wrote:

<quoted text>Not only that, but the industry pays for the NRC "overhead". That supports medical licensees and others. Also, nuclear power plants pay local agencies for emergency preparedness, which is used primarily for unrelated emergencies, such as floods and tornados. In addition, owners of nuclear power plants pay substantial federal, state and local taxes.

'
You are absolutely correct, however they are subsidized by the government and electrical rates. Pay Peter to pay Paul. The financial end of nuclear energy is a black hole. There are 20-40 years of jobs to just clean up the existing mess. Robotics is necessary unless you want to sacrifice people to the exposure. If anyone of you are proponents of nuclear energy and actually works in a facility, google the hazards for that particular facility. Get with your unions and make sure your environment is clean. I understand that we want jobs but don't expose yuorself to any health hazards. We all have the right to a clean work environment.

solpwr wrote:

You are absolutely correct, however they are subsidized by the government and electrical rates.

Electrical rates are not a subsidy, they are the price that is paid for a product. The government gets money from nuclear utilities, not the other way around.

solpwr wrote:

<quoted text>'
You are absolutely correct, however they are subsidized by the government and electrical rates. Pay Peter to pay Paul. The financial end of nuclear energy is a black hole. There are 20-40 years of jobs to just clean up the existing mess. Robotics is necessary unless you want to sacrifice people to the exposure. If anyone of you are proponents of nuclear energy and actually works in a facility, google the hazards for that particular facility. Get with your unions and make sure your environment is clean. I understand that we want jobs but don't expose yuorself to any health hazards. We all have the right to a clean work environment.

"Pay Peter to pay Paul." You're still proving your ignorance. You can't even get the cliche correct. "The financial end of nuclear energy is a black hole." How do you figure this to be? Because your electricity rate goes up? Did you ever think that it might do that because the company that owns the plant might want to recover some of the monies paid to construct it a little bit faster so that they can get thier profits coming in sooner? "There are 20-40 years of jobs to just clean up the existing mess." Do you have any idea of what the "existing mess" really is or how long it takes to do this work? Have you done it? I thought not. Are all of your arguments going to be conjecture based on second or third hand knowledge gained from someone with just as poor of an understanding (using that term very loosely here) of magnitude of the work or its physical demands as your own or are you going to go get some of that first hand knowledge on your own? Again I thought not.
"Robotics is necessary unless you want to sacrifice people to the exposure." So the job cannot be done without robotics? Just what are these exposure levels you're worried about? Do you understand the risks yourself? What was your exposure last year? I'm betting my lifetime exposure from nuclear power is less than what you got last year from natural background and cosmic sources. The risk is minimal if controlled correctly which it is.

Once more you prove your ignorance of the topic and cite canted sources and conjecture with no real first hand understanding or knowledge to back it. Your doing so well at proving yourself ignorant.
Nicely done.