How much longer?

Phil J wrote:


A majority of people in Nevada absolutely do not want the Yucca
Mountain site to become active. They feel that the rest of the
country is trying to cram this thing down their throats, and they
resent it.

Rumor was (I had friends there who moved back to Oregon from Vegas
because the hated it) that it would radically reduce taxes for Nevada
residents if they charged the world to stow it's nuclear waste.

And it ain't like Nevada citizens haven't been radiated before. :/

It doesn't have to be Nevada. They could put it in downtown LA for what
most of the west coast cares. Berkeley would be a fair compromise.

-c

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:LfXKj.112154$yE1.66521@attbi_s21:

I think your desire to blame environmentalists is an
oversimplification of a complicated situation. I think your
description of short-sighted leadership is probably pretty correct,
but not for the reasons you like to believe.

Of course there are many aspects of the energy problem. They are all,
however, exacerbated by stupid, over-the-top environmental rules that
are abused by folks with a not-so-hidden agenda.

Just TRY to get something as simple as, oh, say, a runway extension
completed, and observe the almost unbelievable quantity of
environmental red tape that must be overcome. Now imagine building an
OIL REFINERY. Ain't gonna happen with the current set of rules.

If I were "King for a day", I would decree the following "4 Steps to
American Energy Independence":

1. New refineries are not being built because draconian environmental
rules prevent them from being constructed. As of now, all
environmental restrictions on oil refinery construction are lifted.


idiot.

2. New oil is not being pumped because draconian environmental rules
prevent new oil fields from being developed. As of now all
environmental restrictions on development of known oil reserves are
lifted.


Nope, wrong again, fjukktard.

3. New nuclear power plants are not being built because draconian
environmental rules prevent their construction. As of now all
environmental restrictions on construction of new nuclear plants are
lifted.


Yeah, god forbid that a few thousand deaths and an area the size of New
Jersey being made uninhabitable gets between you and your mindless
aerial hazard forays into the wild blue.

4. By decree, hydrogen fuel is now the way of the future -- period.
From this point on, by my decree, the scientific and industrial
capacity of the United States will be used to perfect a hydrogen
distribution system to replace our current gasoline distribution
system, and all cars will be powered by hydrogen. Source:
http://tinyurl.com/6hklhf


You are a moron. Hydrogen is not a fuel, it is a medium. What you gonna
make it with, Jay?




Bertie

On Apr 8, 11:04*pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

Of course there are many aspects of the energy problem. *They are all,
however, exacerbated by stupid, over-the-top environmental rules that are
abused by folks with a not-so-hidden agenda.

Just TRY to get something as simple as, oh, say, a runway extension
completed, and observe the almost unbelievable quantity of environmental red
tape that must be overcome. *Now imagine building an OIL REFINERY. *Ain't
gonna happen with the current set of rules.

If I were "King for a day", I would decree the following "4 Steps to
American Energy Independence":

1. New refineries are not being built because draconian environmental rules
prevent them from being constructed. *As of now, all environmental
restrictions on oil refinery construction are lifted.


Right. And would you want that unregulated refinery built upwind from
your hotel?? Didn't think so.

It's too bad all those existing refineries were shut down. It would
be a lot easier to expand those than to build new ones. By the way,
from 1975 to 2000 the EPA received exactly 1 permit request for a new
refinery. The oil companies haven't exactly been tripping over
themselves trying to build new capacity. During that time period,
there have been lots of requests to the EPA to expand existing
refineries. This expansion has been allowed, so it is a myth to claim
that environmental laws have prevented the oil industry from building
or expanding refining capacity.


2. New oil is not being pumped because draconian environmental rules prevent
new oil fields from being developed. *As of now all environmental
restrictions on development of known oil reserves are lifted.

What new American oil fields have they been prevented from developing?


3. New nuclear power plants are not being built because draconian
environmental rules prevent their construction. *As of now all environmental
restrictions on construction of new nuclear plants are lifted.

Here again, from 1978 until 2007 the NRC received exactly zero
requests for nuclear plant permits. The problem isn't that the
industry is getting turned down. The industry isn't trying to build
new plants. The reason is that nuclear plants are so hideously
expensive, and the payback period is so long, that it is a huge
financial risk to build them.

But we can agree that they probably should be built. Nuclear plants
actually emit less radiation than coal-fired power plants. Less
mercury too. And newer designs should be safer than the older ones we
currently operate. But before we ramp up the use of these, we need to
have a solution for long-term (10,000 years) storage of the
radioactive waste. Right now it's just sitting around at the existing
plants.

4. By decree, hydrogen fuel is now the way of the future -- period. *From
this point on, by my decree, the scientific and industrial capacity of the
United States will be used to perfect a hydrogen distribution system to
replace our current gasoline distribution system, and all cars will be
powered by hydrogen. *Source:http://tinyurl.com/6hklhf

Sounds good, but where do you get the hydrogen??


These four steps will, in a matter of a decade, resolve 90% of our problems.
Unfortunately, it will take another Great Depression to shake our system
enough to force a repeal of the environmental restrictions that make
resolving our energy problems impossible.

I can see that you really want to believe that it is environmental
regulations that are causing these problems. That gives you a nice
boogey man you can rail against. But it is more complicated than
that.

Phil

Right. And would you want that unregulated refinery built upwind from
your hotel?? Didn't think so.

Ah, yes -- another person who apparently hasn't flown over most of the
country -- which, by the way is almost entirely VACANT. Of course you
wouldn't build a refinery in a populated area.

It's too bad all those existing refineries were shut down. It would
be a lot easier to expand those than to build new ones. By the way,
from 1975 to 2000 the EPA received exactly 1 permit request for a new
refinery. The oil companies haven't exactly been tripping over
themselves trying to build new capacity.

Wow, talk about confusing "effect" with "cause"! The plain and simple
reason there have been almost no applications is because the draconian
environmental rules have made building a new refinery a multi-billion-dollar
nightmare of paperwork, hearings, and a never-ending web of interlocking
regulations that would keep a fleet of lawyers busy for decades.

What new American oil fields have they been prevented from developing?

Here's a quote from 2005 -- when oil was at "record prices of $50/barrel":
************************************************** ************************************************** *********************
"America has no shortage of oil. Washington has a shortage
of political will to let American workers go get it."
- Chairman Richard W. Pombo

Washington, DC - As oil prices climb to record highs above $50 per barrel,
some have asserted that we are "running out" of this resource. In truth, we
are not running out of oil in America. We can safely increase domestic
production by at least 17.2 million barrels per day by 2025.

"America has no shortage of oil for the foreseeable future," House Resources
Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-CA) said. "Washington has a shortage
of the political will required to let American workers go get it. We have
not increased domestic supply in thirty years. As a result, our dependence
on foreign oil has skyrocketed to the point where we are sending $200
billion overseas to import this resource every year. At least a fraction of
that sum should be spent at home to increase supply, lower prices, and
create jobs."
************************************************** ************************************************** *********************
You might want to check this DOE document, which was the source of his
information: http://tinyurl.com/5fv3nj
It's even more pertinent today than it was in 2005.

Here again, from 1978 until 2007 the NRC received exactly zero
requests for nuclear plant permits. The problem isn't that the
industry is getting turned down. The industry isn't trying to build
new plants. The reason is that nuclear plants are so hideously
expensive, and the payback period is so long, that it is a huge
financial risk to build them.

Again, you've got the cart in front of the horse. The reason reactor costs
are prohibitive isn't because the technology is any big deal -- just check
out the way the Navy builds reactors for the fleet, without incident -- but
because the regulation of domestic reactors has been made purposefully so
convoluted that they CAN'T be built without literally spending years in
court, supporting another fleet of lawyers.

But before we ramp up the use of these, we need to
have a solution for long-term (10,000 years) storage of the
radioactive waste. Right now it's just sitting around at the existing
plants.

Another environmentalist-induced catastrophe waiting to happen. The safe
nuclear waste storage facility has been built (at a cost of billion$) and
has been ready for years -- but "environmentalists" (and I use the term
loosely) have the whole concept of long-term storage tied up in an endless
series of lawsuits. So, all of our ever-growing stockpiles of nuclear
waste continue to be stored unsafely at each power plant. It's criminal.

Sounds good, but where do you get the hydrogen??

Why, from the newly-built plethora of safe, non-polluting nuke plants that I
(as King) decreed -- of course!

:-)

I can see that you really want to believe that it is environmental
regulations that are causing these problems. That gives you a nice
boogey man you can rail against. But it is more complicated than
that.

I didn't say environmental regulations are "causing" the problems -- I said
over-regulation has made the problems virtually unsolvable. Bottom line:
Until these onerous agenda-driven regulations are relaxed, we will continue
to see our economy thrashed by ever-increasing energy costs.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:qcdLj.60058$TT4.34792@attbi_s22:

Right. And would you want that unregulated refinery built upwind from
your hotel?? Didn't think so.

Ah, yes -- another person who apparently hasn't flown over most of the
country -- which, by the way is almost entirely VACANT.

On that basis we should build it inside your head.


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:qcdLj.60058$TT4.34792@attbi_s22:

Right. And would you want that unregulated refinery built upwind from
your hotel?? Didn't think so.

Ah, yes -- another person who apparently hasn't flown over most of the
country -- which, by the way is almost entirely VACANT.

On that basis we should build it inside your head.


Bertie

And you offer this pointless tid bit because you have no point, or don't
understand the issue, or both?

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:GKdLj.65016$y05.28316
@newsfe22.lga:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:qcdLj.60058$TT4.34792@attbi_s22:

Right. And would you want that unregulated refinery built upwind
from
your hotel?? Didn't think so.

Ah, yes -- another person who apparently hasn't flown over most of
the
country -- which, by the way is almost entirely VACANT.

On that basis we should build it inside your head.


Bertie

And you offer this pointless tid bit because you have no point, or
don't
understand the issue, or both?



Just being constructive.


865


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:GKdLj.65016$y05.28316
@newsfe22.lga:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:qcdLj.60058$TT4.34792@attbi_s22:

Right. And would you want that unregulated refinery built upwind
from
your hotel?? Didn't think so.

Ah, yes -- another person who apparently hasn't flown over most of
the
country -- which, by the way is almost entirely VACANT.

On that basis we should build it inside your head.


Bertie

And you offer this pointless tid bit because you have no point, or
don't
understand the issue, or both?



Just being constructive.


865


Bertie

73

On Apr 9, 7:30*pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Right. *And would you want that unregulated refinery built upwind from
your hotel?? *Didn't think so.

Ah, yes -- another person who apparently hasn't flown over most of the
country -- which, by the way is almost entirely VACANT. * Of course you
wouldn't build a refinery in a populated area.


Apparently you have never flown over this country at night. When I
have, I have looked down at thousands of lights, everywhere. Other
than the mountains, there are not very many areas that are not
populated. But I notice that you don't want a refinery built near
your home or business. Well everyone else feels the same way, and
THAT is a major problem for building new refineries. That isn't a
liberal or a conservative issue. Even a teeth-gnashing conservative
like yourself doesn't want one of these things built near him.


It's too bad all those existing refineries were shut down. *It would
be a lot easier to expand those than to build new ones. *By the way,
from 1975 to 2000 the EPA received exactly 1 permit request for a new
refinery. *The oil companies haven't exactly been tripping over
themselves trying to build new capacity.

Wow, talk about confusing "effect" with "cause"! * The plain and simple
reason there have been almost no applications is because the draconian
environmental rules have made building a new refinery a multi-billion-dollar
nightmare of paperwork, hearings, and a never-ending web of interlocking
regulations that would keep a fleet of lawyers busy for decades.


No, Jay. They didn't build them because they didn't want to.
Refining has always been a low-margin business. It was more
economical to expand the existing refineries. The permits for those
expansions were submitted to the EPA, and they were approved.

What new American oil fields have they been prevented from developing?

Here's a quote from 2005 -- when oil was at "record prices of $50/barrel":
************************************************** ************************************************** **********************
"America has no shortage of oil. Washington has a shortage
of political will to let American workers go get it."
- Chairman Richard W. Pombo

I checked out your document. Here is another quote from the same
article:

"Contrary to the claims of special interest groups, we can produce
more energy to grow our
economy and continue environmental achievements at the same time,"
Pombo said. "These
efforts go hand in hand. They are not mutually exclusive."

I assume you are in the special interest group he mentioned. Seems
like your man Pombo disagrees with you, Jay.

By the way, did you even bother to read that article? It was about
"technically recoverable" oil. That is oil that up till now has been
too difficult or expensive to recover. Here again, this oil will be
more expensive than the current, easily recovered reserves. That
translates to expensive fuel, so it isn't going to decrease our energy
costs.


You might want to check this DOE document, which was the source of his
information: *http://tinyurl.com/5fv3nj
It's even more pertinent today than it was in 2005.

Here again, from 1978 until 2007 the NRC received exactly zero
requests for nuclear plant permits. *The problem isn't that the
industry is getting turned down. *The industry isn't trying to build
new plants. *The reason is that nuclear plants are so hideously
expensive, and the payback period is so long, that it is a huge
financial risk to build them.

Again, you've got the cart in front of the horse. *The reason reactor costs
are prohibitive isn't because the technology is any big deal -- just check
out the way the Navy builds reactors for the fleet, without incident -- but
because the regulation of domestic reactors has been made purposefully so
convoluted that they CAN'T be built without literally spending years in
court, supporting another fleet of lawyers.

There are about 30 new nuclear plants in the planning stages now. Why
all of a sudden is the industry going back to nuclear power? Did all
those nasty environmental laws suddenly get repealed? No. The reason
is economics. Here is an article for you to read. There isn't much
mention of environmental laws (except to note that any future carbon
tax would actually favor nuclear plants). There is a lot in this
article about the financial risk of building these plants. And that
translates to nervous regulators who regulate these public utilities.
But it is the finances that give them acid stomachs.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16286304/


But before we ramp up the use of these, we need to
have a solution for long-term (10,000 years) storage of the
radioactive waste. *Right now it's just sitting around at the existing
plants.

Another environmentalist-induced catastrophe waiting to happen. *The safe
nuclear waste storage facility has been built (at a cost of billion$) and
has been ready for years -- but "environmentalists" (and I use the term
loosely) have the whole concept of long-term storage tied up in an endless
series of lawsuits. * So, all of our ever-growing stockpiles of nuclear
waste continue to be stored unsafely at each power plant. *It's criminal..

Yeah. The big problem is all those flaming liberal environmentalists
in Nevada don't want the storage facility in their back yard. Nevada
is full of flaming liberal environmentalists, right??


Sounds good, but where do you get the hydrogen??

Why, from the newly-built plethora of safe, non-polluting nuke plants that I
(as King) decreed -- of course!

:-)

I can see that you really want to believe that it is environmental
regulations that are causing these problems. *That gives you a nice
boogey man you can rail against. *But it is more complicated than
that.

I didn't say environmental regulations are "causing" the problems -- I said
over-regulation has made the problems virtually unsolvable. *Bottom line:
Until these onerous agenda-driven regulations are relaxed, we will continue
to see our economy thrashed by ever-increasing energy costs.

Well, the nuclear industry is moving forward and the "agenda-driven
regulations" haven't been relaxed. What does that tell you?

Phil

In article Phil J writes:

Apparently you have never flown over this country at night. When I
have, I have looked down at thousands of lights, everywhere. Other
than the mountains, there are not very many areas that are not
populated.

Aha, back to AVIATION!!!

Flying at night is wonderful, but you must be from the east, since
night or day, much of Nevada and Utah looks pretty abandoned.

It is pretty amazing to come around the corner of the Sierras into
the central valley of California at night, and see the ground go from
almost completely dark to lit up all over.

Alan