Skip to main content

View Diary: Troll Rating Fritz Haber, Jimmy Kunstler and the Oracle at Snowmass, Part 2 (155 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "not going to (0+ / 0-)

    work like that"?

    If I read it right they said 7 years .

    l'essentiel est invisible

    by indycam on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 10:48:39 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yup 7 years (0+ / 0-)

      "Building a new reactor will take $4 billion and seven years, including 42 months of regulatory reviews, according to industry and government estimates."

      So when brifri said no to ten years and said <5 ...</p>

      "It takes years (as in 10 or more) to build one,"

      Sorry, that's crap
      Recommended by:
         LIsoundview, Plan9, enochthered
      Trollrated by:
         indycam
      "Sure, it takes years, but for a well-oiled nuclear industry, it takes less than 5 years to build a nuclear plant."

      l'essentiel est invisible

      by indycam on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 11:05:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You must be kicking yourself (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Plan9

        Building more nuclear power plants today is impossible. It takes years (as in 10 or more) to build one, even with today's technology.

        You missed a grand opportunity to troll-rate chapter1 for this outrageous
        lie, which you have so cleverly discovered. That must hurt, because I know how much integrity means to you.

        Oh wait, I was the one who called this person on this lie. That's right. Thanks for reminding me.

        •  What you so flippantly call an (0+ / 0-)

          "outrageous lie"  , I'll bet you , brifri , good money on .

          If this plant is up and on line , 5 years or less from now , today , you get all the money .
          If this plant takes 10 years or more to go on line ,
          I get all the money .
          If it goes on line between 5 and 10 years from today ,
          sliding scale payout . IE , if it goes on line in 5 years and one day you get nearly every dollar , if it goes online just one day under 10 years , I get nearly every dollar . If the thing goes online exactly spot on right between 5 and 10 years , we split the money .

          "Oh wait, I was the one who called this person on this lie. That's right. Thanks for reminding me."
          Talking to yourself and then answering yourself is a sign of mental disorder , you might not want to do that in public .  

          l'essentiel est invisible

          by indycam on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 09:02:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ha ha! Nice try (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Plan9

            Aside from the practical difficulties of making a wager with an anonymous person that would take at least half a decade to collect, why would I want to bet against my own assertions?

            I explicitly said that, because of FIOK (first of a kind) issues, I expect that the first several plants of each design will come in over budget and behind schedule. Less than five years is the time required to build the n-th plant, not the first. (See, you really should try actually reading comments before you troll-rate them.) ;-)

            If this is the best argument that you can put forward -- 5 vs. 7 vs. 10 years to build the first plant -- then you're really grasping at straws. And yet, I keep trading comments with you. Perhaps your right, perhaps I need to have my head examined. I really need to start limiting my discussion to corresponding with those who can actually make a coherent point.

            •  Er ... FIOK = FOAK .. typing difficulties n/t (0+ / 0-)
            •  I will take care of all the (0+ / 0-)

              "practical difficulties".
              A joint savings account in three names that can not be withdrawn from without two signatures .

              "why would I want to bet against my own assertions?"
              Put your money where your mouth is !
              You are being asked to PUT up , and your weaseling .

              "If this is the best argument that you can put forward -- 5 vs. 7 vs. 10 years to build the first plant -- then you're really grasping at straws."
              I'm not making an argument ,
              I'm challenging you to stand behind your statements by wagering your money . If you can not or will not take the challenge , so be it , your just an all talk chickenhack.

              He said 10 years or more , you said thats crap , 5 years or less .
              I challenged you .
              You back away mumbling insults .
              I say HA !

              Look its a sweet deal for you , when its online at any point before 5 years , you win . If its online before the midpoint you get paid .
              I on the other hand need to wait at least to the mid point to know if I am going to get any money back .
              If it takes ten years , I have got to wait the full ten years to get the payout .
              In brief , if you are right you get paid sooner ,
              if I am right I get paid out far later .

              If you are right , you will double your money in less than 5 years , in a fdic insured account . Where in the world are you going to get that rate of interest ?

              l'essentiel est invisible

              by indycam on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 11:07:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Please (0+ / 0-)

                just go away. It was amusing at first, but now you're simply annoying.

                Your comments are even annoying to look at. Geez ... Learn how to use punctuation, for christ's sake! I'm not going to sit here anymore and argue with someone who is so ignorant, that she doesn't even know to use a comma.

                And that's just where the annoyance starts. I'm really tired of reading your incoherent babble, which completely ignores what other people have to say, completely dodges any questions that are asked of you, gets hacked off in a rage of furious troll-ratings at the drop of a hat, and heads off onto some strange tangent that only a psychomaniac in a drug-induced haze could understand. If I had a dime for every time you used the words "prove it" (but didn't really mean it), I'd probably be able to finance your fictitious bet by now.

                As it is ... sigh ... you're just pathetic, and so I'm going to ignore you now. Thanks for playing.

                You probably think that you won this exchange. Well ... go ahead ... think it all you want, it will fit in with the rest of your ideas ... congratulations.

                •  Chickenhack (0+ / 0-)

                  BS artist .
                  Nothing but bluster .
                  When challenged , resorts to infantile insults .
                  Will not , can not , shall not , stand up .
                  Take the bet or fail to take the bet .
                  If you fail to take the bet , your words aren't worth spit .

                  l'essentiel est invisible

                  by indycam on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 11:54:58 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  You perhaps should take the bet, bryfry (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Plan9

              This is in the Austin American Statesman today:

              http://www.statesman.com/...

              An editorial which says:

              The City of Austin is quietly considering whether it should invest in the proposed $6 billion expansion of the nuclear power plant at the South Texas Project near Bay City, and City Council Member Lee Leffingwell is right to defend that consideration - though he and other city leaders no doubt will hear loud and angry objections.

              and

              San Antonio, whose municipal utility also owns part of the South Texas Project, is investing in the expansion, and the Lower Colorado River Authority, which supplies power to much of Central Texas outside of Austin, is in serious talks with NRG over both coal and nuclear plant investments

              and finally

              Nuclear power has its own problems with radioactive waste, but at least that waste is isolated and guarded, not pumped into the air we breathe or the climate we live in.

              Environmentalists are beginning to argue that Texas can get by without adding new nuclear or coal-fired plants. Instead, they say, we could rely on a rigorous program of energy efficiency, conservation, wind and solar power sources and natural gas-fired power plants.

              But it’s doubtful that most Texans, including most Austin Energy customers, want to risk their economic well-being - and air conditioning - on energy efficiency programs and wind turbines alone.

              As Leffingwell notes, the issue isn’t whether to build the two nuclear reactors; it’s whether Austin should participate. Austin should seriously consider it.

              If Austin is going along with the new plants, local support for disrupting the project is apt to be token and by mostly outtastaters.

          •  nice circular logic (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LIsoundview, Plan9, bryfry

            The only reason it won't go online on time is if the anti crowd gets in the way using the courts.

            Then the anti crowd says nuclear won't work because it takes too long.

    •  And your point would be what? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Plan9, bryfry

      That it will take 7 years rather than 5? That's a big climb down from "the ground isn't broken and real building started in 5 years."

      My point is that neither the industry nor the NRC is going to put up with any of the tactics that worked in the past to delay or stymie the construction of new NPP. It looks like the Staff and the NEI have out-lawyered the antinukes and left them flat-footed. The Bloomberg article states that ground will be broken and real building started; there is no legal wrangling that can stop this.

      At 2750 MWe, this project alone could very well match or outproduce the entire American piddle power (wind + solar) industry as it stands now.

      •  And ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Plan9

        They're going with technology (the ABWR) that is proven and has been operating in Japan for the past ten years. It's clear that they are serious about building something now.

      •  "That's a big climb down from" (0+ / 0-)

        Not at all , the bet is still on the table , doing a little prep work on a site before the approval is given , doesn't change anything really via the bet .

        "The NEI -- whose members include nuclear utilities, manufacturers and builders -- hired Winston & Strawn and two other Washington law firms to develop an argument that oversight should begin with construction of the reactor itself, not with the property and structures around it."

        "the ground isn't broken and real building started in 5 years."
        Prepping the site and doing structures around it , is not "real building" of a nuke plant .
        "construction of the reactor itself" is the "real".  

        It looks to me that they are putting , in a little way , the cart before the horse . This may very well backfire on them , if the public gets pissed off that they are not having a say , that the pro nuke force is going ahead pre public approval . I can see people hoping up and down mad .

        As I read the the bloomberg article , the approval process still needs to be gone through .
        ...........................

        "My point is that neither the industry nor the NRC is going to put up with any of the tactics that worked in the past to delay or stymie the construction of new NPP. It looks like the Staff and the NEI have out-lawyered the antinukes and left them flat-footed."

        "At a Nov. 1 public hearing, Geary Mizuno, a senior attorney in the NRC's Office of General Counsel, warned that agency objectivity might be vulnerable to a court challenge should the NRC consider an application after a site was partially developed.

        ``The question,'' Mizuno said, ``is whether the reviewing judge is going to say: `Mr. NRC, you've got to be joking. They dug the hole. You didn't even determine whether this site is a suitable site for a plant, and yet you expect me to believe that the agency is going to act in an unbiased fashion?"

        Geary Mizuno, a senior attorney in the NRC's Office of General Counsel thinks different .
        ...................
        "My point is that neither the industry nor the NRC is going to put up with any of the tactics that worked in the past to delay or stymie the construction of new NPP."
        vs
        The judge might say , quoting Geary Mizuno, a senior attorney in the NRC's Office of General Counsel .
        "You didn't even determine whether this site is a suitable site for a plant, and yet you expect me to believe that the agency is going to act in an unbiased fashion?"
        .................

        "there is no legal wrangling that can stop this."
        vs
        is whether the reviewing judge is going to say: `Mr. NRC, you've got to be joking.
        ................
        Your "slam dunk" statement ,
        looks to me like a whiffle ball hit off a T .

        l'essentiel est invisible

        by indycam on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 08:43:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You've already lost your bet. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Plan9, bryfry

          and you cherry-picked the part of the article that you like, without grasping the whole of it. This is an enormous setback for antinuclear opposition groups:

          ``It was a very smart, strategic move to work in the background before ever submitting a new proposal for a plant,'' says Steve Warner, 42, founder of the anti-nuclear Chesapeake Safe Energy Coalition, who says he was caught flat-footed.

          Miznuno said a judge MIGHT find that the Staff is acting in a biased fashion. That hardly disproves my point. BTW, I would enjoy watching a judge try that with Winston and Strawn in the room.

          In a nutshell, the Staff has said that their purview begins with construction of a nuclear reactor. Prior to that, they don't have any interest. This is a brilliant piece of lawyering that leaves the antinukes powerless, as the reactor is a modest part of the total cost of a building a NPP.

          The first group of reactors will be built on existing sites, which renders your point about all those hopping mad folks immaterial. The antinukes will have to bus hopping mad folks in from all around to protest something that they are powerless to stop.

          •  "you cherry-picked the part of the article" (0+ / 0-)

            I didn't cherry pick , I pointed to the part of the article that shows its not the slam dunk you think it is .
            A judge might halt the whole project . If a judge might halt it , its not a slam dunk .

            And as I said above ,

            "In a nutshell, the Staff has said that their purview begins with construction of a nuclear reactor."
            Yes we agree on that .
            Until work is about to begin on the reactor/s the nuke oversight is unneeded .
            Prior to that, they don't have anything real nukey to regulate  .
            If the contractor grades the place , thats not a nuke , if the contractor puts in a road or two and parking lots for the workers , thats also not a nuke , that can be handled at the local level , if they get permits to grade pave etc from the local land use / improvement board/s , why would the NRC get involved ?
            I don't know the local codes in that local , but if they need an EIS and get a EIS for the planed use , why would the NRC get involved , its not a nuke .
            The EIS for the site , if it needs one , will maybe need to reflect the planed use . If the EIS gets done and approved , .....
            But I think once they get to the point where they need a permit from the NRC , the public will have an chance to comment on the pros and cons .

            You may be right that this has 100% trumped the opposing force , time will tell .
            "it will be interesting to watch , to say the least"

            l'essentiel est invisible

            by indycam on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 12:39:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site