World Politics

[Anonymous]

Ignoring market realities has been a long standing tradition in the conservative camp. Those closet revolutionaries still have that 1776 mentality and pretend to live in the times when an apple was a penny and the interweb a set of tubes.

Nuclear power plants were high on Jefferson's list, for which he granted licenses to French companies, while he would provide the slave labor to have them built. He paid them with bread, rum and cigars.

So that's why conservatives have historically been free-market capitalists. We have a long standing tradition of ignoring market realities. Who knew?

 

[Anonymous]

Google "The Sierra Club, nuclear power."

It might shock you to know there has not been a new nuclear power plant approved to be constructed since the late 1970's. That was actully during the Carter administration.

I did, and found this: http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200701/nukes.asp

Seems that coal being cheaper and easier to make power is the winner here based on the will of the corporations that produce power. But by all means, go beat up a "tree hugger" because it follows with the party line. Not reality, but who cares about that, right? Its like blaming poor people for our current economic crisis. Its popular with people who don't know any better.

 

[Anonymous]

Yea, we know. Now count the number of Republican presidents and majorities in Congress since then and ask yourself if they were all just cowards, or not paying attention?

So remind me again, who's in office? You guys are turning "blame it on someone else" into an art form.

 

[Anonymous]

Funny. Your side stops it and then you blame the other side. The old "Okey-Dokey."

My side? Uh, I don't think it was the independent voters. I do however know that if the energy corporations had wanted to, they could have built them. Again, some people might believe the Republican Party line about evil tree huggers keeping us from the promised land, but the reality is that the market has been for coal, and keeping it the primary means. I am guessing Duke Energy didn't do that because it was more expensive.

 

[Anonymous]

So remind me again, who's in office? You guys are turning "blame it on someone else" into an art form.

No, you are playing the blame game in terms of nuclear power (pronounced ˈnü-klē-ər). I am merely pointing out that your list is a bit short.

 

[Bala Verde]

Limbaugh could only wish to pull that much nookie.

According to Hegel:

Reading the morning newspaper is the realist's morning prayer

I just finished saying my daily prayer, erm staying informed on world affairs and the state of the nation:

 

[Anonymous]

I did, and found this: http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200701/nukes.asp

Seems that coal being cheaper and easier to make power is the winner here based on the will of the corporations that produce power. But by all means, go beat up a "tree hugger" because it follows with the party line. Not reality, but who cares about that, right? Its like blaming poor people for our current economic crisis. Its popular with people who don't know any better.

I'll illuminate.

Going back you will see this;

http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/nuc-power.aspx

and this;
http://www.sierraclub.org/energy/factsheets/basics-nuclearpower.pdf

and this;
http://alleghenysc.org/?cat=28


Now, if nuclear is not commercially viable, then by all means, let's just raise taxes and make it happen. Better yet, force some evil for-profit enterprise to build and operate at a loss and then blame them for failing.

 

[Anonymous]

Well, now you are at odds with Linda Greenhouse and the NY Times. The Times being critical of Obama can not be good news.

"Nearly every president finds something to criticize about the Supreme Court, but not every one gets to do it to the justices’ faces, on national television, in the State of the Union speech."

"This time, Justice Alito shook his head as if to rebut the president’s characterization of the Citizens United decision, and seemed to mouth the words “not true.” Indeed, Mr. Obama’s description of the holding of the case was imprecise. He said the court had “reversed a century of law.”

The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election. It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions."

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/justice-alitos-reaction/?scp=5&sq=supreme%20court&st=cse

Read the highlighted point, and then read the actual substance of my post. It has to do with the actual history of treating corporations as individuals. Then argue the point I am making instead of doing the one-upsmanship shtick. My point was about the precedent of treating a corporation as an individual and therefore protected by the 14th Amendment. (something even those gays don't get) Now, care to comment, or is there another straw man you would like to put up?

 

[Anonymous]

I'll illuminate.

Going back you will see this;

http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/nuc-power.aspx

and this;
http://www.sierraclub.org/energy/factsheets/basics-nuclearpower.pdf

and this;
http://alleghenysc.org/?cat=28


Now, if nuclear is not commercially viable, then by all means, let's just raise taxes and make it happen. Better yet, force some evil for-profit enterprise to build and operate at a loss and then blame them for failing.

Your party has had plenty of opportunity to do that. Why are you just now on the bandwagon? I would suggest that lobbying when your party is in power is much more effective than when they are not. Care to post your letters to your Congressman over the years on this issue?

IF nuclear is viable, and it is, why are they not producing nuclear power plants. They can build them. You expect me to believe that they aren't because of the Sierra Club? Sorry, but it doesn't float.

 

[BroDeal]

So that's why conservatives have historically been free-market capitalists. We have a long standing tradition of ignoring market realities. Who knew?

Correction: Conservatives have historically told the rubes they are free market capitalists. Many rubes have even been dumb enough to believe them. The reality is much different. As soon as they get into power, they spend money at a rate that a drunken Kennedy could not dream about. They run up huge public debts, eventually lose power, and then go back to their rhetoric about small government.

 

[Anonymous]

My side? Uh, I don't think it was the independent voters. I do however know that if the energy corporations had wanted to, they could have built them. Again, some people might believe the Republican Party line about evil tree huggers keeping us from the promised land, but the reality is that the market has been for coal, and keeping it the primary means. I am guessing Duke Energy didn't do that because it was more expensive.

Oh lookey here;

"The Energy Policy Act 2005 then provided a much-needed stimulus for investment in electricity infrastructure including nuclear power. New reactor construction is expected to get under way early in the next decade."

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html

I guess even Evil Duke Energy is betting on Nuclear Power. BTW, who was the President back in 2005?

 

[Anonymous]

Read the highlighted point, and then read the actual substance of my post. It has to do with the actual history of treating corporations as individuals. Then argue the point I am making instead of doing the one-upsmanship shtick. My point was about the precedent of treating a corporation as an individual and therefore protected by the 14th Amendment. (something even those gays don't get) Now, care to comment, or is there another straw man you would like to put up?

Nope. But it's not often I agree with much in the NY Times, so there's that.

 

[ravens]

So that's why conservatives have historically been free-market capitalists. We have a long standing tradition of ignoring market realities. Who knew?

I almost fell off my chair with that one. It's like Alice in Wonderland....

 

[Anonymous]

Oh lookey here;

"The Energy Policy Act 2005 then provided a much-needed stimulus for investment in electricity infrastructure including nuclear power. New reactor construction is expected to get under way early in the next decade."

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html

I guess even Evil Duke Energy is betting on Nuclear Power. BTW, who was the President back in 2005?

I am sorry, where are Duke Energy's new plants located?

 

[Bala Verde]

According to these sources HERE (p21 table 3-1 and 3-2) and here:

- It takes approximately 10 years before a plant is completed.

-

A power plant that is within 8 years of coming on line will have employed approximately 3% of its full operating staff. The percentage increases to 74% when the plant is within a year of coming on line

- capacity in megawatts/reactors/employment
1,000/1/392
2,000/2/738
3,000/3/1,068

Furthermore, the wages:

Median annual wages of power plant operators were $58,470 in May 2008. The middle 50 percent earned between $47,850 and $68,250. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $38,020, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $80,390.

Median annual wages of nuclear power reactor operators were $73,320 in May 2008. The middle 50 percent earned between $63,440 and $82,540. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $55,730, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $96,480.

Median annual wages of power distributors and dispatchers were $65,890 in May 2008. The middle 50 percent earned between $55,520 and $77,780. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $45,010, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $88,500.

About 40 percent of power plant operators, distributors, and dispatchers were members of unions in 2008.

 

[Anonymous]

Correction: Conservatives have historically told the rubes they are free market capitalists. Many rubes have even been dumb enough to believe them. The reality is much different. As soon as they get into power, they spend money at a rate that a drunken Kennedy could not dream about. They run up huge public debts, eventually lose power, and then go back to their rhetoric about small government.

Geez, I thought Obama was liberal.

 

[BroDeal]

My side? Uh, I don't think it was the independent voters. I do however know that if the energy corporations had wanted to, they could have built them. Again, some people might believe the Republican Party line about evil tree huggers keeping us from the promised land, but the reality is that the market has been for coal, and keeping it the primary means. I am guessing Duke Energy didn't do that because it was more expensive.

Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner. These so called conservatives are quick to claim they believe in the free market, but they cannot seem to wrap their heads around the realites of business.

There are any number of red states that would not mind a few billion dollars being spent in their state to build a nuclear power plant. Aside from high paying jobs at the plant itself, the lower electricity costs would stimulate the local economy and lead to more jobs. Many natural gas burning plants have been built. No nuclear ones. It is simply not economical to build nuclear power plants in the U.S. Force coal and natural gas to pay for the pollution they add to the environment and the economics will change.

 

[Anonymous]

Nope. But it's not often I agree with much in the NY Times, so there's that.

Great, but the fact still remains, the decision was based on a faulty precedent written by a court reporter in the late 1800's. The justices didn't even write it into their opinion, it was in the header. Now, without that little...um...HUGE piece of the puzzle, the Supreme Court never makes the horrible decision they made last week. I simply wonder why a bunch of "strict constructionists" didn't clarify the fallacy and end the whole thing instead of adding more weight to the worst precedent in electoral history.

 

[ravens]

10 pages of posts today and there's still about an hour and a half left. wow.

That was some speech!

 

[Anonymous]

I am sorry, where are Duke Energy's new plants located?

South Carolina and Ohio if the chart is correct (or if I'm reading it correctly).

William States Lee III, SC AP1000 x 2
2234 Duke Energy 13/12/07 but delayed

Piketon (DOE site leased to USEC), OH US EPR 1600 Duke Energy

 

[Anonymous]

Oh lookey here;

"The Energy Policy Act 2005 then provided a much-needed stimulus for investment in electricity infrastructure including nuclear power. New reactor construction is expected to get under way early in the next decade."

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html

I guess even Evil Duke Energy is betting on Nuclear Power. BTW, who was the President back in 2005?

Here is the irony of your point, it wasn't until the Bush administration gave energy companies government welfare (actually read what you posted), that they decided to move forward. "Catsup is a vegetable you hungry, breeding little mongrel dog"...oh, the Chariman of Duke Energy is on the phone and wants some gubment welfare, well by all means, put the call through...

 

[Anonymous]

South Carolina and Ohio if the chart is correct (or if I'm reading it correctly).

William States Lee III, SC AP1000 x 2
2234 Duke Energy 13/12/07 but delayed

Piketon (DOE site leased to USEC), OH US EPR 1600 Duke Energy

Would you provide pictures of the plants please. And why do they need gubment welfare to do it if it is sooooo market friendly?

 

[Anonymous]

South Carolina and Ohio if the chart is correct (or if I'm reading it correctly).

William States Lee III, SC AP1000 x 2
2234 Duke Energy 13/12/07 but delayed

Piketon (DOE site leased to USEC), OH US EPR 1600 Duke Energy

Here, let me quote your posting: "The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided financial incentives for the construction of advanced nuclear plants."

I highlighted the important part.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh, and this little nugget: " First is the design certification process, second is provision for early site permits (ESPs) and third is the combined construction and operating licence (COL) process. All have some costs shared by the DOE."

DOE = Department of Energy

Welfare, welfare, welfare. I thought your market theory was that business didn't need gubment welfare?

Oh, and you read the chart wrong, those plants don't exist on anything but paper...and even then, one is delayed, and the other isn't through COL process. Dang.

 

[scribe]

Some things we learned today:

-Conservatives are tired of giving 'that boy' time to get his policies going.
-If Bush had got a third term, we would be in much better shape than we are.
-Bush probably gave money to some energy buds to complete a nucular plant or two over the next 10 or more years.
-Nancy Pelosi needs a teleprompter with instructions on how often to lead the clapping.
-Ravens hasn't figured out how to arrange the number of posts on a page in his preferences.