Sigh. I have never done that. In fact, I do research online, and buy local if I can. There is no local electronics distributor, so almost all parts are bought online. The rest come from a couple hamfests, or flea markets. I'm not about to drive six hours to pick up a few parts, when they can be bought online, or by mail order. It's funny that a lot of retailers who whine about online shopping, have online stores as well.
Sears & Roebuck is one example of an old line B&M company that depended heavily on mail order, 100 years ago. They even sold kit homes, and live chickens by mail.
Your first misapprension stems from the idea that the presence or absence of any specific generating facility has anything to do with rates. They are set by politically appointed bureaucrats who never did have anything to do with producing anything.
Your second misapprehension has to do with the magnitude of mandated paperwork that does nothing but employ otherwise potentially productive people in creating and checking useless and usually inappropriate paperwork. This is a real cost adder to the local customer.
Your third misapprension has to do with the insane blockage of any solution to the waste. This is a major reason why your rates cannot go down until a solution is allowed and the waste processed in some way to either make new fuel or reduce the intensity to near background levels. In the mean time there is a huge legal liability which must be handled in increased rates, and maintenance of the secure storage of the waste.
Does this help you get a better grasp on what i am trying to explain?
Only that nuclear energy is too complicated to deal with, and giving bureaucrats more reasons to create more papers. More reasons to just shut them down and let market forces to decide.
You didn't even hear the whooshing sound. It is not too complicated for engineers and scientists, it is too complex for politicians and the idiots that vote them into office. If market forces decided we would already have nuclear fuel reprocessing.
Let me help you clarify your thinking, in the 1930s and 1940s most automobile owners not only could they actually did most maintenance and minor repairs. How many people can do that today? Are automobiles too complex to be used? How about the devices you access usenet with? Is that too complex?
San OnoFre was shutdown for technical issues. No regulations could have help or hurt it. They spent millions on safety studies and tens or hundreds of millions on plumbing experiments with rate payer's money. With rates almost double the national average, why would anyone even want to restart it?
Before the shutdown, they always threaten to raise rate and/or blackout without San OnoFre. After they decided to shut it down, they are saying that there is no problem meeting electrical demands. The biggest problem is the San OnoFre builder/operator, not the regulator.
Corn cobs were left in the outhouse for ignorant liberals. Red cobs for the first pass, then white to inspect the effectiveness of the red cob. Repeat, as necessary or until you can't stop the bleeding! :)
Ok, let's discuss it. Why do you call it a "political" institution? It was created by Lincoln to advise the government *without* a political bias. What have they done to indicate a political bias?
How can a scientific opinion indicate a political bias? If you a-priory assume that having an opinion that differs from yours is a political bias, then yes, everyone in the world is biased.
The president is a scientist??? I'm not sure if you mean that to be an insult to the president or to scientists...
Given your opening statement that "nuclear waste is a POLITICAL issue, not an engineering issue.", I shouldn't be surprised that you draw these conclusions.
Of course, you start with that assumption and then come back around to prove it.
Yes, but I won't be around to measure it either... you silly goose!
That's not the problem and you know it. I was talking to a friend who worked for Bechtel and he told me how he received more radiation exposure on the airplane flight to the facility than he did at a nuke facility. It may be true, but it isn't the point that the plants will poison people working and living by them. Yes, Fukushima type problems are possible, maybe even inevitable. But that still isn't the *big* problem. Heck, I don't think anyone died directly as a result of the Fukushima reactors melting down, possibly a few dozen or hundreds from cancer over the next 40 years... while 10's of thousands died directly from the Tsunami, IIRC.
The Tsunami damage will be rebuilt and the cost will be absorbed into the economy. The costs from storing nuclear waste will last for a million years! Integrate THAT! Picture how many Tsunamis will wash over the Japanese shorelines in the time it takes for the reactor waste to become safe.
Two things: Your time period is over a thousand times too long; and nutters (perhaps yourself included) insist on there never is to be allowed reprocessing or any other possible solution to the waste.
Hi Rickman, The reason it is political is because, like most large institutions, it is run more on politics than science. Do research that supports AGW? You get admitted. Do research that casts doubts on AGW? You don't get admitted. After a generation, you have an institution that has as its main goal to support the members of the institution. Providing un-biased advice is a definite non-starter. If you provide the 'wrong' advice, you will find your funding cut abruptly. Why do you thing AGW is a consense issue? Millions of dollars in reserch funds have gone into supporting it Nuclear waste is the same thing.
As for the solutions proposed, yes, it is a circular argument. Scientist proposes idea for storage. Politician says, Ok, but you need to modify it like this. Scientist modifies it as per instructions. New politician says that those modifications make the idea unworkable, do it this way instead. New plan drawn up, $1M in funds used to analyze and study plan, plan shot down due to technicality on page 3,742 in volume 3 of the documentation. Politician says to start over, but now, do it 'this' way.
And then, opponents to nuclear say that it is infeasible to store nuclear waste due to technical issues...
And again, anything with a half life measured in multiple thousands of years is not radioactive, unless you are going to ban bananas from sale for the same reason!
I hear what you are saying, but do you have any evidence that this is true? It is easy to speculate. Beside, the self preserving aspect is common to all institutions, no matter of what nature. Are companies political? Any yet they are *very* self preserving. Heck, I'm self preserving!
It is hard to fake science, so not many institutions can get away with it much or they get a bad reputation. That is what science is all about.
What science institutions support a 10,000 year containment policy as being adequate? Any that are independent of the nuclear industry?
Well, you can construct any scenario you wish, but that doesn't make it real.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.