Thank An Enviromentalist / Democrat

In article >, Pooh Bear wrote:

> Interest in nuclear power waned after TMI because the *utilities* are risk averse.
> In short, the power generators didn't want nuclear any more.

Basically anything beyond the status quo ends up in the courts, etc. So
more coal power!

I thank all the idiots who drive giant trucks and SUVs in situations
where they are completely unnecessary. Most of them are Republicans.

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> > Interest in nuclear power waned after TMI because the *utilities* are risk averse.
> > In short, the power generators didn't want nuclear any more.
>
> Basically anything beyond the status quo ends up in the courts, etc. So
> more coal power!

It doesn't involve the courts. Power generators want a reliable return on investment not
the danger of irretrievable losses.

I reckon it'll need ( free ) Government 'insurance' to persuade generators to build
nuclear again.

Graham

In article >, Pooh Bear wrote:
>
>
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, Pooh Bear wrote:
>>
>> > Interest in nuclear power waned after TMI because the *utilities* are risk averse.
>> > In short, the power generators didn't want nuclear any more.
>>
>> Basically anything beyond the status quo ends up in the courts, etc. So
>> more coal power!
>
> It doesn't involve the courts. Power generators want a reliable return on investment not
> the danger of irretrievable losses.
>
> I reckon it'll need ( free ) Government 'insurance' to persuade generators to build
> nuclear again.

lawsuits are more likely for nukes. Nukes take a lot of money just to
break ground. patching up the coal plant and expanding it is
comparitively cheap with a much better ROI.

zmike6 wrote:
> I thank all the idiots who drive giant trucks and SUVs in situations
> where they are completely unnecessary. Most of them are Republicans.

Who else would be stupid enough to buy such monsterous vehicle just to
haul a couple of grocery bags? Who else would be dumb enough to fall
into the trap set by the petro and the auto industries? These idiots
participate in the scam that boost the demand for oil while all kind of
(lousy) excuses are made for "shortage" in the supply end. All this
serves at least one purpose: more money for the scammers and more
misery for the rest of the world.

Despite the macho image these obnoxious vehicles may bring to the
idiots who drive them, the reality is these idiots are earning
themselves the title of MORONS OF THE CENTURY. I bet these morons would
be nothing without the shell of their giant trucks and SUVs.

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 06:29:30 GMT, zmike6 > wrote:

>I thank all the idiots who drive giant trucks and SUVs in situations
>where they are completely unnecessary. Most of them are Republicans.

Dream on - they're mostly soccer moms picking up kids. They've got money for 1
vehicle, and that's the vehicle they drive, 100% of the time. And... mostly
soccer moms are democrats, environmentalists, etc... because they're women, who
tend to be more democrat than republican.

On 29 Apr 2006 01:37:51 -0700, wrote:

>
>zmike6 wrote:
>> I thank all the idiots who drive giant trucks and SUVs in situations
>> where they are completely unnecessary. Most of them are Republicans.
>
>Who else would be stupid enough to buy such monsterous vehicle just to
>haul a couple of grocery bags?

Same bunch that is dumb enough to complain about industrial production
equipment because they don't like the looks of it - democrats, of course. Its
democrats that are opposing the wind production equipment off Nantucket. Its
democrats / animal rights wackos that are protesting the windmills elsewhere
because they whack a few birds. Ain't nobody dumber than people that oppose
production of needed energy facilities.

> Who else would be dumb enough to fall
>into the trap set by the petro and the auto industries?

The ****-fer-brains bunch that are always trying to stop something - the
environmentalist democrats.

>These idiots
>participate in the scam that boost the demand for oil while all kind of
>(lousy) excuses are made for "shortage" in the supply end.

These think-with-their-emotions bunch are responsible for the fix we're in
because we haven't been able to build a new refinery for 30 years, can't build
powerlines from where the generator is to where the electricity is needed,
can't drill where the oil is, etc. etc.

> All this
>serves at least one purpose: more money for the scammers and more
>misery for the rest of the world.

That's what failing to develop needed production and distribution facilities
does.

>
>Despite the macho image these obnoxious vehicles may bring to the
>idiots who drive them,

Soccer moms...

>the reality is these idiots are earning
>themselves the title of MORONS OF THE CENTURY.

That's what they get for thinking with thier emotions. But the thinkers (the
Republicans) know we need new refineries, oil wells, power lines, and in the
location that will do the most good. That is, oil wells where the oil is,
refineries in additional places other than where they can all get blown over by
the same hurricane, power lines from generators to the people that need the
power.

>I bet these morons would
>be nothing without the shell of their giant trucks and SUVs.

Naw, they'd just have to make two trips to transport the soccer team...

Dave Head

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 01:28:59 -0500, (Brent
P) wrote:

>In article >, Pooh Bear wrote:
>
>> Interest in nuclear power waned after TMI because the *utilities* are risk averse.
>> In short, the power generators didn't want nuclear any more.
>
>Basically anything beyond the status quo ends up in the courts, etc. So
>more coal power!

Yep - we're going to get a lot more coal, coal-fired generators, gassified
coal, coal processed to ethanol, because... its familiar... and won't therefore
be sued as often. Its the dumbass democrat obstructionists that are causing
the lack of progress. Hell, they're even so dumb that they sue the forest
service when they try to do something about the brush growing up all over the
place, so then its the brush that catches fire and burns down the whole damn
forest anyway.

There's almost no end to the lack of intelligence exhibited by democrats /
environmentalists / animal rights wackos.

Dave Head
>

On 28 Apr 2006 16:16:53 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" > wrote:

>
>Dave Head wrote:
>>
>>
>> 3) failure to build refineries in this country
>
>Drink the Kool Aid!
>
>It has been shown that refiners have halted production to keep supplies
>low. Talk radio blather aside, of course.

And the impossibility of building new refineries in this country, due to
environmentalist / democrat opposition, has enabled such a situation. If there
were many more refineries, and many more companies operating them, then when
one set of refiners cut back, the others would step up production and capture a
larger portion of the market. That's the way capitalism is _supposed_ to work.
But democrat environmentalists have interfered with this, so now the few that
own refineries can do most anything they want to. Again, thank the
environmentalist democrats - you'd have to be absolutely daft to vote for a
democrat and then expect the situation to improve.
>
>Nuclear power? NIMBYs come in all sorts of colors, including red.
>Seen it with my own eyes.
>
>Don't worry - the GOP is damn glad you can't think for yourself.

I've thought about it just fine, and the democrats are at the bottom of this
particular **** pile.

Dave Head

>E.P.

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 05:28:12 +0100, Pooh Bear
> wrote:

>
>
>Dave Head wrote:
>
>> If you like the price of fuel today, thank an environmentalist and the
>> democrats that support them for:
>
>< snip >
>
>> 5) trumping up a bunch of nonsense about nuclear waste disposal that has
>> precluded nuclear power development
>
>Interest in nuclear power waned after TMI because the *utilities* are risk averse.
>In short, the power generators didn't want nuclear any more.

And why is that? Its because of all the democrat / environmentalist opposition
to nuclear power that caused a ton of anti-nuclear regulations to be imposed,
which made it virtually impossible to get approval for a new plant. So... why
try?

The "risk" isn't anything about nuclear power, its about getting sued, which
was much more enabled by the environmentalist / democrats clearing the way for
it. If instead they would do something to promote nuclear power, we'd have
nuclear power.

Dave Head
>
>Graham