Thank An Enviromentalist / Democrat

> On 5/12/2006 7:37 PM ... Pooh Bear wrote:
>
>
> Rubbish. It's because investors don't like risk.
>
> Graham
>
>

Huh? If that statement were true, all money would be in bank CD's.

jcr wrote:

> > On 5/12/2006 7:37 PM ... Pooh Bear wrote:
> >
> > Rubbish. It's because investors don't like risk.
> >
> > Graham
>
> Huh? If that statement were true, all money would be in bank CD's.

Relative risk. The degree of risk is related to the likelihood of getting your
investment. Power generation is generally low risk.

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> John David Galt wrote:
>
>
>>Pooh Bear wrote:
>>
>>>John David Galt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Our only bad energy choices have been:......................
>>>>
>>>>- Not building more nuclear power plants
>>>>
>>>>All directly caused by the eco-liar movement. You can go now.
>>>
>>>
>>>Totally wrong. Power generators lost interest in nuclear generation after TMI.
>>
>>Only because the eco-liar movement had successfully used BS-science lawsuits to
>>make it prohibitively expensive to build one.
>
>
> Rubbish. It's because investors don't like risk.

And the risk was created by those same eco-liar lawyers.

John David Galt wrote:

> Pooh Bear wrote:
> >
> > John David Galt wrote:
> >
> >>Pooh Bear wrote:
> >>
> >>>John David Galt wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Our only bad energy choices have been:......................
> >>>>
> >>>>- Not building more nuclear power plants
> >>>>
> >>>>All directly caused by the eco-liar movement. You can go now.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Totally wrong. Power generators lost interest in nuclear generation after TMI.
> >>
> >>Only because the eco-liar movement had successfully used BS-science lawsuits to
> >>make it prohibitively expensive to build one.
> >
> >
> > Rubbish. It's because investors don't like risk.
>
> And the risk was created by those same eco-liar lawyers.

The risk if you'd bothered to notice is that the damn thing might blow up !

Graham

In article >,
John David Galt > wrote:
>Pooh Bear wrote:
>>
>> John David Galt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Our only bad energy choices have been:......................
>>>
>>>- Not building more nuclear power plants
>>>
>>>All directly caused by the eco-liar movement. You can go now.
>>
>>
>> Totally wrong. Power generators lost interest in nuclear generation after TMI.
>
>Only because the eco-liar movement had successfully used BS-science lawsuits to
>make it prohibitively expensive to build one.

It's not true, anyway. They tried to get a few plants in operation
even after TMI, but were sued into stasis.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew Russotto wrote:

> In article >,
> John David Galt > wrote:
> >Pooh Bear wrote:
> >>
> >> John David Galt wrote:
> >>
> >>>Our only bad energy choices have been:......................
> >>>
> >>>- Not building more nuclear power plants
> >>>
> >>>All directly caused by the eco-liar movement. You can go now.
> >>
> >>
> >> Totally wrong. Power generators lost interest in nuclear generation after TMI.
> >
> >Only because the eco-liar movement had successfully used BS-science lawsuits to
> >make it prohibitively expensive to build one.
>
> It's not true, anyway. They tried to get a few plants in operation
> even after TMI, but were sued into stasis.

Sued for what ?

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:
> John David Galt wrote:
>
>
>>Pooh Bear wrote:
>>
>>>John David Galt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Pooh Bear wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>John David Galt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Our only bad energy choices have been:......................
>>>>>>
>>>>>>- Not building more nuclear power plants
>>>>>>
>>>>>>All directly caused by the eco-liar movement. You can go now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Totally wrong. Power generators lost interest in nuclear generation after TMI.
>>>>
>>>>Only because the eco-liar movement had successfully used BS-science lawsuits to
>>>>make it prohibitively expensive to build one.
>>>
>>>
>>>Rubbish. It's because investors don't like risk.
>>
>>And the risk was created by those same eco-liar lawyers.
>
>
> The risk if you'd bothered to notice is that the damn thing might blow up !

There is no such risk. It's a lie invented by the eco-movement. The lawyers
used that lie to create the real risk, which is of being bled to death by
lawyers.

ALL of the core issues of the environmental movement are similar lies.
They have succeeded politically (so far) for one simple reason:
Emergencies, even phony ones, sell papers and TV ads, thus making the
media the natural allies of anybody who says there's an emergency.
And you've fallen for it, hook, line, and sinker.

The only thing unique about Bush is that he's the first Republican ever
to successfully use this "phony emergency" strategy in politics, while
the Democrats have been doing so ever since they got alcohol banned in
1919.

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article >,
> John David Galt > wrote:
>
>>Pooh Bear wrote:
>>
>>>John David Galt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Our only bad energy choices have been:......................
>>>>
>>>>- Not building more nuclear power plants
>>>>
>>>>All directly caused by the eco-liar movement. You can go now.
>>>
>>>
>>>Totally wrong. Power generators lost interest in nuclear generation after TMI.
>>
>>Only because the eco-liar movement had successfully used BS-science lawsuits to
>>make it prohibitively expensive to build one.
>
>
> It's not true, anyway. They tried to get a few plants in operation
> even after TMI, but were sued into stasis.

The only plants they tried to open after TMI were ones already built. The
lead time needed under the then-current regulatory regime was 20+ years.

John David Galt wrote:

> Pooh Bear wrote:
> > John David Galt wrote:
> >
> >>Pooh Bear wrote:
> >>
> >>>John David Galt wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Pooh Bear wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>John David Galt wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Our only bad energy choices have been:......................
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>- Not building more nuclear power plants
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>All directly caused by the eco-liar movement. You can go now.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Totally wrong. Power generators lost interest in nuclear generation after TMI.
> >>>>
> >>>>Only because the eco-liar movement had successfully used BS-science lawsuits to
> >>>>make it prohibitively expensive to build one.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Rubbish. It's because investors don't like risk.
> >>
> >>And the risk was created by those same eco-liar lawyers.
> >
> >
> > The risk if you'd bothered to notice is that the damn thing might blow up !
>
> There is no such risk. It's a lie invented by the eco-movement. The lawyers
> used that lie to create the real risk, which is of being bled to death by
> lawyers.

I used the term 'blow up' tongue-in-cheek.

The damage at TMI was very substantial. In fact when they got to see the core, the
damage was *worse* than expected.

The reaction of generators to lose interest in nuclear was quite undertandable. The
problem with TMI boiled down ( lol ) mainly to poor instrumentation and control systems
( and flawed maintenance and operator training ). I hope the lessons have been learnt,
God knows enough attention has been given to it.

Graham

John David Galt wrote:

> The
> lead time needed under the then-current regulatory regime was 20+ years.

20+ ! Cite please.

Graham