« I'm baaaack! | Main | Vincent Ferro »

March 27, 2007

Comments

ren

I'm amazed. I'll believe it when I see it. But it would be great if it could really happen.

on another note, namely the so-called renewal of ethical government under our corruption-loathing new crop of Democrats.... check out:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070329-121558-7254r.htm

That's something else I took a wait-and-see attitude on.

Am I turning out to have been right?

b tween

I think Tony Blair really put the screws to Paisley, partly to rescue some kind of "legacy". Also, Northern Ireland's financial weight is very very heavy on England.
Lastly, the global war on terror has cowed these "mainstream" terrorists. I have a poster released by the FBI of "known terrorist organization and their emblems" and these people are all on it. The law enforcement focus on terror has made it very dangerous for them to operate. I'm still amazed that the Basque resistance (ETA) is still operating, but Spain has its own brand of craziness.

That article comes from the Washington Times. Whenever something make it into the pages of that rag, I first ask what interest does the Reverend Sun Myung Moon have in the matter.

The article quotes numerous Republicans and a single Dem. It's hardly balanced.

I was amazed at the mention of the role of the OMB and how it has obsoleted the role of the library. Usually the Washington Times will omit those bits.

Anyway, to answer the question whether you're turning out to be right - I'll reserve judgement until I see legislation that deals with the question. Then we can praise or bury them together.

b tween

here's one for you ren - which I would have posted on your blog if you opted to simply moderate rather than prohibit comments.

Yet more evidence that our hopeless American society is doomed by its inability to see past the next election, quarterly earnings report, rainstorm or paycheck.

http://moneyandmarkets.com/press.asp?rls_id=733&cat_id=6&

to quote:

So far, the U.S. is planning a handful of new nuke plants. However, in my opinion, U.S. utilities are totally blowing it when it comes to securing their future uranium supplies, especially in the face of soaring prices.

Once they decide to build a nuclear facility, utilities have to secure their fuel supply for up to six years out. But people in the industry tell me that U.S. utilities have done practically nothing in this department!

Ren

As I understand it, we will have a new reprocessing facility in the southwest, a large new Canadian mine coming back on line after a 2 year flood closed it down...and.... commodity markets have become active in uranium, awakening dormant providers. That is before even mentioning Australia, the world's uranium pit, which likely will allow more areas to be mined & exported. Perhaps market forces will apply an invisible hand to the problem, if & when anybody actually builds a new plant..... My gut feeling is that President Hillary might let the nukes run, but President Obama would most likely shut 'em down, just before declaring the US a Sharia state.

Where are you moving to, by the way? (I've been looking at the Ozarks). Are they selling condos up on Ruby Ridge?

b tween

Cameco keeps saying the Cigar Lake mine will be back real soon. They say it all the time. Nobody really expects production to come back for a few years.
Our own mining is still in its infancy after a 20 year shutdown, and Australia still has a ban on mining - though if Labour loses this coming election (because Labour there is beholden to the coal mining unions who oppose nuke energy), it's expected that they will begin drilling in earnest.
Thing is, it takes a long time to bring a uranium mine into production. Permits, governments, worker safety and so on can make it take 10-20 years from groundbreaking to the first load out.
This is a big part of why the Cigar Lake flood was such a disaster, and Cameco keeps promising all is well. The world NEEDS that uranium, or they will start building more "Clean Coal" (HAH!) energy plants.

Speaking of "Clean Coal". President Obama has the full support of the Illinois "Clean Coal" industry. So much for non-polluting energy under his administration.

President Gore has blessed nukes. He can't stop talking about pebble bed reactors. I would say that Madame President Clinton is apt to go with him. So she'd probably be good for the nuclear industry.

In the unlikely event a Republican is elected to the White House, I think the nuclear industry would have more problems than under Madam President Clinton, because the GOP denies global warming and views any energy initiatives that don't benefit the oil majors as tree-hugger threats to good business. They'll support clean coal and oil because that's where the money is. They seem incapable of seeing 5 years down the road.

Where am I moving? I think we'll high tail it to the Athabasca Basin. I hear lakefront property on the new man-made Cigar Lake is going cheap, and by then I figure the climate of northern Alberta will be like Missouri is today!

Incidentally, I don't think any of this will matter to Indian Point. That's a whole other matter. That facility just can't stop showing its age.

And what's the problem with thorium? Why not plan to convert?

b tween

Just as a follow up to the question about Madame President Clinton, I found this:

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2007/03/senator-hillary-clinton-on-nuclear.html

Nursing tops

http://northernaggression.typepad.com/hellyeah/2007/03/march_26_2007_c.html#comments

Nursing tops

hey i am sorry, i thought i lost your page and i was saving your URL. accidentally, i pasted your URL on comments too!

i was suppose to say you are saying a good piont of view in your post and thanks to Ren for the link too!

fertileaid views

ooops... am i late on this post? *sigh*

The comments to this entry are closed.