alw 0 #26 October 8, 2008 QuoteAt best your argument is an American reality, as the article stated 5 years to build in China. You still have just assumed that there would be court tie-ups. These could be expeditiously adjudicated and a remote location chosen for construction. This isn't an assumption. The term expeditious does not apply to building any type of power plant. Finally I am not aware of any remote locations in the USA that would not be opposed by some faction. If it actually did get sited the problems with transmission and distribution would be monumental. You've got a positive vision but you don't know much about building power plants - USA or ROW (rest of world). The reality is quite different than most of the conjecture that is out there. --------------------------------------------- Every day is a bonus - every night is an adventure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #27 October 8, 2008 If Americans and DC actually committed to the project as necessary to our nation, yes, we could cut oil use in half in 10 years. The majority of it is cars, and we certainly can cut fuel use in half...but only if we choose to. This is before we even get serious about electric, hydrogen, or other exotic fuel sources. Maybe 15 years to allow for the complete replacement of the existing cars, but more serious use of carpooling and other fuel use reductions can make up for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #28 October 8, 2008 >You still have just assumed that there would be court tie-ups. These could be >expeditiously adjudicated and a remote location chosen for construction. No, they really couldn't be. Heck, we're building a nuclear repository in one of the driest, safest, most remote and most useless (to us) locations in the country, and there have been endless lawsuits trying to shut it down. The timeline of 10-15 years is pretty realistic unless there are very drastic changes in the way powerplants are sited, approved and constructed. Fortunately, there are other kinds of powerplants (solar and wind primarily) that can be constructed more rapidly. We should proceed as quickly as possible on both fronts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #29 October 8, 2008 Quote>You still have just assumed that there would be court tie-ups. These could be >expeditiously adjudicated and a remote location chosen for construction. No, they really couldn't be. Heck, we're building a nuclear repository in one of the driest, safest, most remote and most useless (to us) locations in the country, and there have been endless lawsuits trying to shut it down. The timeline of 10-15 years is pretty realistic unless there are very drastic changes in the way powerplants are sited, approved and constructed. Fortunately, there are other kinds of powerplants (solar and wind primarily) that can be constructed more rapidly. We should proceed as quickly as possible on both fronts. yuka mountain will be at least 40 years from design to actual storage Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alw 0 #30 October 8, 2008 QuoteThe timeline of 10-15 years is pretty realistic unless there are very drastic changes in the way powerplants are sited, approved and constructed. Fortunately, there are other kinds of powerplants (solar and wind primarily) that can be constructed more rapidly. We should proceed as quickly as possible on both fronts. Glad you understand the realities. It sure is better than Nuclear or coal, but now we're seeing some real problems siting wind and solar. SES Solar one and Two almost didn't move forward because of PETA and EPA requirements. The Fed stepped up at the last minute and cleared the land leases for them. Still, the real problems for rapid repowering is manufaturing capacity. Our factory is full and backed up for several years, so is GE, Alstom, MHI, and others. We have a Wind Blade plant in Iowa and so does one of our competitors and they are both at near capacity. Finally, we are strapped for people. It takes 5 years to build a power generation engineer from a High School graduate. We're competing with a global market for these people but we're experiencing some problems. Other industries need the same raw materials. I'm hoping that a practical and integrated solution will come out of the turmoil we are experiencing right now, but 30 years in this business doesn't give me a great deal of hope that Washington will work with us. --------------------------------------------- Every day is a bonus - every night is an adventure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #31 October 9, 2008 Quote Quote Mine is not conjecture as I posted 2 sources that state 5 to 6 years to get them online. Conjecture is to post something and not support it. >>>>>>>>>>>>This is isn't conjecture, it's a global reality. At best your argument is an American reality, as the article stated 5 years to build in China. You still have just assumed that there would be court tie-ups. These could be expeditiously adjudicated and a remote location chosen for construction. i am sure that in 3-5 years you could be online with nuclear, but that is after you remove the roadblocks. also China's government does what it wants irregardless of the peoples wishes. china doesn't have to listen to people saying what they do or do not want in courts. And we do? OJ's conviction was so in contrast with the 6th amendment, attacking Iraq was so illegal, snatching Noriega was so in violation of world laws, Guantanamo Bay prison was so against the Geneva Convention, we break so many world laws it's sick as well as ignore the will of the people that laws are simply short obstacles; I don't see how you can say our gov cares what we say. We could declare an emergency order and get er done. Oh yea, did I forget the debacle of the Airline strike right before 9/11? Bush told the workers he would void their contract if they struck, a fed judge backed him, even tho he said there was nothing allowing the pres that kind of authority. Please, we are sooooooooooooooo much above China Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #32 October 9, 2008 QuoteQuoteAt best your argument is an American reality, as the article stated 5 years to build in China. You still have just assumed that there would be court tie-ups. These could be expeditiously adjudicated and a remote location chosen for construction. This isn't an assumption. The term expeditious does not apply to building any type of power plant. Finally I am not aware of any remote locations in the USA that would not be opposed by some faction. If it actually did get sited the problems with transmission and distribution would be monumental. You've got a positive vision but you don't know much about building power plants - USA or ROW (rest of world). The reality is quite different than most of the conjecture that is out there. It was stated that it takes 10 years to build a nuclear powerplant, I merely cited 2 sources that stated 5 years, you continue to guess that tree-huggers would actually stop and hold them up for another 5 yearss - that is your conjecture, even if it played out that you are right, at this point it takes 5 years per the cited material, to which you don't contest. Either cite or keep guessing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #33 October 9, 2008 Quote>You still have just assumed that there would be court tie-ups. These could be >expeditiously adjudicated and a remote location chosen for construction. No, they really couldn't be. Heck, we're building a nuclear repository in one of the driest, safest, most remote and most useless (to us) locations in the country, and there have been endless lawsuits trying to shut it down. The timeline of 10-15 years is pretty realistic unless there are very drastic changes in the way powerplants are sited, approved and constructed. Fortunately, there are other kinds of powerplants (solar and wind primarily) that can be constructed more rapidly. We should proceed as quickly as possible on both fronts. Please cite the powerplant/repository/facility, I'm here to learn; I'll even do the research of the suits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #34 October 9, 2008 >Please cite the powerplant/repository/facility OK, I'll give you two. First is a powerplant, one built near my town back in NY - Shoreham. Construction began in 1973 and completed in 1984. Low power testing began in 1984 and continued until 1989. In 1985, the lawsuits started in earnest, and were eventually successful in shutting down the reactor before it ever went into full power commercial operation. It cost around $6 billion. Next is Yucca Mountain, the national nuclear waste repository. The decision was made to go with Yucca in 2002. Projected opening date is 2017-2020. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #35 October 9, 2008 Quote>Please cite the powerplant/repository/facility OK, I'll give you two. First is a powerplant, one built near my town back in NY - Shoreham. Construction began in 1973 and completed in 1984. Low power testing began in 1984 and continued until 1989. In 1985, the lawsuits started in earnest, and were eventually successful in shutting down the reactor before it ever went into full power commercial operation. It cost around $6 billion. Next is Yucca Mountain, the national nuclear waste repository. The decision was made to go with Yucca in 2002. Projected opening date is 2017-2020. yucca mountain was actually had its beginnings in 1976. in 40 years they have planned tested and dug only the main chaimber, the actual storage chamber as of 2005 or 2006 haddn't been started yet. the earliest it could be ready was said to be 2010 but i doubt that is realistic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
