 |
|
 |
|
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:09:05 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"trudogg" <...@4ax.com...
Nukes are the only permanent solution to America's energy dilemma, and far
cleaner and safer than coal.
-- Ernie
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:55:31 GMT, Dave K <...@att.net
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:09:05 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"
<...@example.invalid
You know, I'm almost convinced, however...
There was Chernobyl...
There was Three Mile Island.
Things run by humans are just not foolproof. The types of disasters
that a failure in a nuclear plant can, very quickly, cause very long
term damage to a lot of people, and property.
Of course, that is also true of fossil fuels; it just takes longer
for the effects to show up.
There was an article in the February 1, Chemical Engineering trade
journal. It has Spain building a commercial scale solar power plant
using heated salts to produce steam to drive a turbine. I had 2,500
heliostats to focus the sun's energy. The article said the heat
storage capacity was 13 hours of no sun.
Might be this one:
<http://www.sovereign-publications.com/torresolenergy.htm<http://www.torresol energy.com/en/energia-termosolar03.html
There are certainly drawbacks to passive solar energy, but the
technology does exist. I am not sure I would blindly go down the path
of nuclear without looking at other things.
--
Cheers! :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:18:46 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"Dave K" <...@4ax.com...
A Russian-designed disaster run by drunks. Forty-seven people were killed,
fewer than in Russian coal mines that year. The anticipated rise in cancers
downwind of the plume never materialized. Using Chernobyl is an example of
nuclear technology is like using the Tacoma Narrows collapse as an example
of bridge construction.
In which not a soul was harmed.
If we rejected every benefit because there might be a remote risk somewhere
down the road we would still be living in caves. The question to be asked
is: Do the long-term benefits outweigh the long-term risks? In the case of
nuke power the answer is a resounding YES!
The effects of continuing fossil fuel use, in terms of global warming and
climate change, are vastly more serious than any potential nuclear accident
will ever be.
Solar energy on the scale necessary to equal the output of a nuclear power
plant power isn't feasible. Demonstration projects abound, but none of them
is remotely capable of the output of even a wind farm. We are not going
"blindly" into nuclear power. We have four decades of experience and a
nearly flawless safety record behind us. The sad thing is that nations like
France and China are so far ahead of us at this point we'll have to swallow
our pride and buy package nuke plants from them until we can catch up.
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:28:23 -0500, "Allan Smith" <...@guesswhere-here.com
Dave,
Apples and oranges, compared to strawberries. There is no water in a
pebble-bed, so there is no risk of the cause of both Chernobyl and TMI -
loss of coolant pressurization followed by a steam-void or steam-explosion.
The coolant is already a gas. There is no phase-change risk.
Keep in mind, each pebble is a complete, self-limiting reactor, and none of
them can reach critical mass alone. In fact, if cooled to room temperature,
you may safely hold one in your hand.
The Pebble Bed has been tested more than once by turning off all systems. It
went to its self-limiting idle temperature and passively sat there until
everything was turned back on.
China has 9 years of operational and stress-testing of a pebble-bed. I
suspect we'll be buying them from China within a decade.
Allan
--
One asks, many answer, all learn -- Plato, on the 'Forum
---
True civility is when every one gives to every other one every right
that they claim for themselves.
"Dave K" <...@4ax.com...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:43:58 -0500, trudogg <...@long.last
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:09:05 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"
<...@example.invalid
...the problem with nukes is waste storage. If and when they come up
with a way to neutralize the radioactivity of the spent fuel...it
truly will be the best solution to our energy problems. But to
proliferate nuke plants now without a good answer to the waste
problems is not a good plan.
--
http://gssites.com/congrats/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:55:30 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"trudogg" <...@4ax.com...
The amount of waste produced by all nuke plants is insignificant next to the
waste produced by a single coal plant.
They have, decades ago. Nuke plants have the best safety record of any
energy-generating method as well. Not a single person has died of radiation
or poisoning at a commercial nuke plant in the USA. Despite the hysteria
over Three Mile Island, no one was injured, much less killed.
..it
As Allan says, the newest class of reactor creates neatly-packaged,
geologically stable waste. The biggest obstacle to reviving nuke power in
the US is public hysteria fomented by the anti-nuke crowd. France has been
generating 87% of its electricity for decades without harm. They even export
it to non-nuke nations, a situation the US would love to be in.
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:49:36 -0500, trudogg <...@long.last
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:55:30 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"
<...@example.invalid
...coal is a non-starter. It was strictly campaign rhetoric.
...they were lucky as hell. And it "was" human error, you can't get
completely past that.
...as I said, "in theory". The amount of time this stuff has to stored
is unparalleled in human history. This stuff is cleaner on the front
end, barring accidents...but it's the storage that no one can
guarantee. Anyone that says they can is a liar...
--
http://gssites.com/congrats/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:27:38 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"trudogg" <...@4ax.com...
Yes, it was. But who could possibly anticipate a worker using a candle flame
to look for an air leak? The plant itself didn't malfunction. in any case
most new nuke plants operate with a minimum of people.
I think a failure 2 million years down the road can be safely disregarded.
:-) Spent fuel isn't particularly dangerous. I knew one scientist who had a
spent fuel pellet on his key chain, and I've handled spent pellets without
any protection at all. The hysteria over disposal is just that. Even
high-level nuke leftovers are cast into ceramic or glass blocks which are
inert and harmless. Thousands of tons are shipped by truck and rail every
day without incident.
Japan uses breeder reactors to pretty much eliminate waste, but Americans
have been conditioned to think that a single molecule of escaped plutonium
will kill off half the country, so we don't.
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:12:48 -0500, trudogg <...@long.last
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:27:38 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"
<...@example.invalid
...I think the point is that with nuke power, you have to anticipate
just about everything or it shouldn't be put in. I live about twenty
miles from Turkey Point, everytime those damn loudspeakers get tested
I get heartburn.
--
http://gssites.com/congrats/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:05:42 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"trudogg" <...@4ax.com...
No, trying to eliminate all risk is impossible, and with nukes' sterling
safety record it's unnecessary.
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:15:49 -0500, trudogg <...@long.last
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:05:42 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"
<...@example.invalid
...as things stand currently in this country, agree to disagree.
--
http://gssites.com/congrats/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:06:08 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"trudogg" <...@4ax.com...
Uranium and plutonium being two of the heaviest elements, they tend to sink
immediately, bind to carbonate clays and stay there. The Soviets dumped
dozens of reactors into the Arctic Sea over the years.
http://tinyurl.com/c4loq5 The sites are being monitored by Russian and
American agencies.
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:05:50 -0700, Larry Gates <...@example.invalid
There's worse places to store it.
They finally got that sub up that sank at Murmansk. I saw it on
engineering marvels. It needed *a lot* of buoyancy. I wonder how it would
compare to the displacement of contemporary naval units.
--
larry gates
if (rsfp = mypopen("/bin/mail root","w")) { /* heh, heh */
-- Larry Wall in perl.c from the perl source code
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:34:33 -0500, trudogg <...@long.last
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:06:08 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"
<...@example.invalid
...page not found.
--
http://gssites.com/congrats/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 28 Feb 2009 00:14:54 GMT, Bert Hyman <...@iphouse.com
In news...@giganews.com "Ernie Jurick"
<...@example.invalid
That's not TinyURL's fault; the referenced link is apparently from a
search on the NYTimes Web site and as such is ephemeral.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN ber...@iphouse.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 06:31:38 -0500, trudogg <...@long.last
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:09:03 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"
<...@example.invalid
...that makes me feel a bit better, but the Russians really are idiots
about some things.
--
http://gssites.com/congrats/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 12:00:44 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"trudogg" <...@4ax.com...
It was Soviet policy: you reach the goal of your 5-year plan by any means
necessary. Building x-number of nuclear reactors was another goal, which was
achieved even if the result was Chernobyl. China went through the same stage
with Mao's Great Leap Forward: the production goals were attained, which was
all that mattered to the Politburo. The fact that the country was nearly
destroyed in the process was irrelevant. Just another reason why Communism
failed.
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:09:16 -0500, trudogg <...@long.last
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 12:00:44 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"
<...@example.invalid
...I have to wonder what other 'easter eggs' they've left for
mankind...
--
http://gssites.com/congrats/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:08:05 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"trudogg" <...@4ax.com...
Environmental cleanup. Eastern Europe is spending a fortune bringing
environmental mitigation up to EU standards.
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:20:22 -0500, trudogg <...@long.last
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:08:05 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"
<...@example.invalid
...that area of the world has had a long head start on polluting their
environment. I've always had the thought in the back of my head that
if we avoided having a nuclear exchange with the USSR, they'd probably
poison themselves through pollution and the absence of standards.
--
http://gssites.com/congrats/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:02:05 -0500, "Allan Smith" <...@guesswhere-here.com
dogg,
Pristine geologic pyrolyzed-carbon and silicon carbide deposits billions of
years old have been observed, intact. That sort of predates pre-dates all of
human history (dinosaurs too). That's where the idea comes from. They are
the most stable of all known geologic formations.
The diamond in Lynda's ring comes from South Africa, whose deposits were
formed somewhere in the midst of the Archean age. That's about 2.9 to 3.2
billion years ago, and is only about 0.8 to 1.9 billion years after the
Earth itself was formed. It is about the same time that the first beginnings
of life appeared on the planet, tho. But the appearaance of life is an
estimate, and, in fact, her chip of pyrolyzed carbon may predate all life on
planet Earth.
So far, her diamond seems pretty stable. And I am of the opinion that that
is good enough for at least a hundred half-lives of nuclear fuel.
Allan
--
One asks, many answer, all learn -- Plato, on the 'Forum
---
True civility is when every one gives to every other one every right
that they claim for themselves.
"trudogg" <...@4ax.com...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:06:34 -0500, trudogg <...@long.last
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:02:05 -0500, "Allan Smith"
<...@guesswhere-here.com
...that isn't a "conflict diamond" is it? And what is the cost of
creating these storage "containers"? What if the construction of some
of them are faulty? It still comes back to dealing with a half life of
over what...20,000 years? So what happens in a couple of millenia if
these containers fail somehow?
--
http://gssites.com/congrats/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:11:05 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"trudogg" <...@4ax.com...
Either technology will have progressed to the point where the problem is
easily dealt with, or civilization will have crumbled and whatever succeeds
human beings won't know about it, or the world will have gone into runaway
global warming and life will be extinct.
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:17:14 -0500, trudogg <...@long.last
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:11:05 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"
<...@example.invalid
...sounds like an answer the GOP would concoct.
--
http://gssites.com/congrats/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:30:47 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"trudogg" <...@4ax.com...
Really, to worry about a non-problem happening at a point in time twice as
long as all recorded human history is a bit much. What specifically are you
afraid of?
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:25:47 -0500, trudogg <...@long.last
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:30:47 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"
<...@example.invalid
...leaving a situation that future generations may, or may not, be
able to clean up. Acting like nuclear power is just another walk in
the park is a bogus attitude to cop. We've just seen how screwed up
things can be when regulations are weakened. Who's to say that at some
point in the future someone won't ease off regs on nukes? I can see
the Repugs doing it to save money. And then pooh-poohing the very real
concerns that anyone should have about this energy source. Just like
you are now...
--
http://gssites.com/congrats/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:13:03 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"trudogg" <...@4ax.com...
Again, the American nuke industry has a near-flawless safety record. If
aviation had a similar record there would be one commercial plane crash
every 50-60 years.
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:36:31 -0500, trudogg <...@long.last
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:13:03 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"
<...@example.invalid
...c'mon, how many reactors and how many planes. I'm not completely
against nuke power, particularly if these pebble reactors are as
usable as you and Allan say.
--
http://gssites.com/congrats/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:37:09 -0500, "Allan Smith" <...@guesswhere-here.com
dogg,
From uranium ore to disposed-of nuclear fuel, less than a third of today's
methods (the post-processing, re-processing, vitrification, and entombment
of today's spent fuel is quite costly).
For pebbles, disposal is designed-in, and built-in at manufacture. It is
already post-processed, re-processes itself internally, is already vitrifed,
and is its own entombment.
Not to mention that the reactor itself costs well less than half what
conventional water reactors do.
They are not continers, they are thousands of tiny fuel-particles mixed into
a single pyrolytic carbon structure, or pebble. Each particle is usually an
insoluble oxide or carbide of the metal fuel, and each particle is
individually coated with the same silicon carbide that coats the entire
pebble. Each insoluble particle is thus entombed three times - by its SiC
coating, the pyro-carbon surrounding it, and the SiC outer shell.
What failure mode are you concerned about?
Allan
--
One asks, many answer, all learn -- Plato, on the 'Forum
---
True civility is when every one gives to every other one every right
that they claim for themselves.
"trudogg" <...@4ax.com...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:44:48 -0500, trudogg <...@long.last
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:37:09 -0500, "Allan Smith"
<...@guesswhere-here.com
...and how many of these reactors do we have in place now?
...I'm concerned with any of these current storage plans that may fail
at sometime in the future. You seem to have complete confidence in
technology, I've learned to be more cautious. I don't want to leave
future generations a mess that they may not be able to clean up.
--
http://gssites.com/congrats/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:42:03 -0500, "Allan Smith" <...@guesswhere-here.com
dogg,
The first demonstration reactor was put in operation in Germany in 1966, and
operated for 23 years. Political attitudes in Germany prevented further
exploitation of the design.
China licensed the design and technology from Germany, and put the first
pebble bed in operation at Tsinghua University (China's MIT) in 2003, for
about $300 million, taking three years to build. That is a first-prototype
cost and construction time, and compares to the $2500 million and six years
a conventional reactor would cost and the six years it would take to build.
It has been in operation since then, and has been extensively studied by
China's best engineers, and its most promising future ones. They have a 200
MW that should either be almost complete, or already be in operation. China
plans to use the modular design and easy scalability to stamp 'em out like
cookies over the next decade, building 30 by 2020, scattering them around
the country (proximity to customers dramatically reduces distribution-grid
costs). Last I hear, they plan on having 300,000 megawatts by 2050.
South Africa also has a 200 MW about to come online, but environmental
groups and politics are muddying the waters.
But nobody knows pebble bed like the Chinese (certainly not us. MIT's
research budget for them was $20 million last year). I supect we'll be
buying the reactors from China. Uranium is a by-product of gold mining in
South Africa, and they have announced plans to be the pebble-maker for the
world, so they will probably get that check.
You couldn't be more wrong about absolute faith. But you are right that I
will embrace alternatives proven far superior to what is being done
currently. And make no mistake - we ARE generating hundreds of tons of
nuclear waste each year, and it is enormously expensive to deal with. So it
makes sense to me to stop doing any more of it the old way, and start doing
it a far better, safer, and less expensive way.
Allan
--
One asks, many answer, all learn -- Plato, on the 'Forum
---
True civility is when every one gives to every other one every right
that they claim for themselves.
"trudogg" <...@4ax.com...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:01:06 -0500, trudogg <...@long.last
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:42:03 -0500, "Allan Smith"
<...@guesswhere-here.com
...I really want us to find an alternative to the way we're doing it
now. But if this is so safe, why isn't it getting more play over here?
--
http://gssites.com/congrats/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:07:12 -0700, Larry Gates <...@example.invalid
It's safe. It's just a lot cheaper to burn coal.
--
larry gates
Psychotics are consistently inconsistent. The essence of sanity is
to be inconsistently inconsistent.
-- Larry Wall in <...@wall.org>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:21:33 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"trudogg" <...@4ax.com...
Because America instinctively rejects anything not invented here, which is
why we still use obsolete mobile phone technology, rank near the bottom in
internet speed, have no national heath plan and still refuse to switch to
the metric system. Remember the American response to the Concorde? America
didn't build it, so the government simply banned it for cross-country
travel. In the case of pebble-bed technology, we're so far behind we'll
probably end up swallowing our pride and buying Chinese, as Allan said. But
it wouldn't surprise me in the least for Conservatives to push through a
bill making them illegal here, forcing us to build older versions that cost
three times as much and don't work as well.
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:27:28 -0500, trudogg <...@long.last
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:21:33 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"
<...@example.invalid
...Obama is opening some doors, so I guess we'll have to wait and see.
--
http://gssites.com/congrats/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:09:13 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"trudogg" <...@4ax.com...
Another problem is that we haven't trained nuclear power engineers and
technicians for 20 years.
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:37:22 -0500, trudogg <...@long.last
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:09:13 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"
<...@example.invalid
...then who is watching the reactors we have now?
--
http://gssites.com/congrats/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:11:05 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"trudogg" <...@4ax.com...
People approaching retirement age or people imported on high-tech visas.
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 08:00:03 -0500, "Allan Smith" <...@guesswhere-here.com
Ernie,
It's industry lobbyists working through politicians that have preserved the
status-quo. The power industry doesn't want nuclear except in a way that
makes them more money and gives them power and autonomy. Autonomy is a
significant issue, as the inspectors and regulators have a distinct presence
and authority in nuclear.
Allan
--
One asks, many answer, all learn -- Plato, on the 'Forum
---
True civility is when every one gives to every other one every right
that they claim for themselves.
"Ernie Jurick" <...@giganews.com...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 12:04:11 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"Allan Smith" <...@giganews.com...
We are, after all, a capitalist country, and making money is the name of the
game. The alternative is a federal nuke construction agency, which would run
as efficiently as, say, the Postal Service. :-)
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:12:40 -0600, JP <...@trashthisjinnette.com
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 12:04:11 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
And you now want them to run Healthcare?
JP
--
If you have it,
A truck brought it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:01:42 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"JP" <...@4ax.com...
I would love for health care to be provided by companies in competition, but
doing so is bankrupting us while driving down the quality. A plethora of
insurance companies, payment agencies and others has pushed American health
care costs into the stratosphere, while 40 million of us have no coverage at
all. The paperwork alone is mind-boggling. A single-payer system eliminates
all that. Can you imagine what air travel would be like if there were no FAA
and we had 16 different companies vying for business, each with its own
brand of planes, standards, regulations, safety and guidance systems? The
American railway system nearly came to a halt when there were 10 companies
operating in every state, each with its own rail width, flange type, spacing
and weight-bearing ability. Unification via federal regulation ended that.
The telephone very nearly went under for the same reason. A nuclear plant
regulatory system makes sense; a nuclear plant construction agency would set
us back to North Korean conditions.
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 20:54:54 GMT, Dave K <...@att.net
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 12:04:11 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"
<...@example.invalid
For the most part, my mail is reliable.
--
Cheers! :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:11:34 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"Dave K" <...@4ax.com...
Any private company could deliver it faster and cheaper, and make junk mail
pay its own way. The Postal Service is another agency whose costs constantly
increase as service declines, due to legacy health and pension benefits.
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:46:13 GMT, Dave K <...@att.net
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:11:34 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"
<...@example.invalid
I am not sure what you have against any organization paying what it
promised their employees. You can bring up all the coercion, and
intimidation things you want to on either side, but the fact remains
it was agreed to, and promised.
What part of agreed to, or promised, do you not like?
Do you not see it was the company at fault for not providing for the
agreement/promise all along? Do you not see that the companies,
including the US Government, have tried to reduce the amount of cash
on hand to pay for these promises? Had they not done that, and it
applies to Social Security too, they, and you, would not be crying
about "legacy health and Pension Benefits!"
All of the time companies were making profits, they also lobbied to
get the rules changed about what they'd have to keep on hand to pay
pensions to lower and lower values. While health care costs were
rising, they shifted that cost to employees too. They not only gambled
with actuarial tables, they gambled with reap now, pay later.
Again, I do not understand your position in the context of
companies, or even government agencies, paying for what they promised.
--
"In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular."
~ Kathy Norris
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:35:04 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"Dave K" <...@4ax.com...
The fact that promises made 40 years ago are unsustainable today. Look at US
auto manufacturers. When the cost of paying off those long-ago promises
makes their cars unaffordable and the companies no longer able to compete,
what then? Dump it on the taxpayers again? Look at how taxpayers have to
subsidize the pensions of former steelworkers and coal miners. And it will
get worse.
Forty years ago the threat of strikes hung over every American industry.
Companies promised the moon to avoid them, which accounts for the
gold-plated benefits of the UAW and others. Forty years ago people retired
and died an average of 5 years later. Today they live into their 80s,
racking up ever-larger medical bills in the absence of a national health
care plan. It's become an avalanche. It's all well and good to talk piously
about promises, but when you're at the foot of the mountain you either have
to act or die.
That's what companies hire lobbyists for. Congress used SS as a piggybank
for far too long. Now it's payback time and the till is nearly empty. How
should it be refilled?
So you're saying we should rely on prayer to escape the avalanche? Or should
we simply send the avalanche back up the hill and tell it to behave? :-) How
do you resolve the imminent impact of what was promised 40 years ago with
what can be delivered today?
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 21:30:26 GMT, Dave K <...@att.net
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:35:04 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"
<...@example.invalid
OK, let me get this right, a promise is not a promise if you work to
make it so you profit by tearing down the laws that make you promise
legal, and then abrogate it when it inconveniences you? Is that the
sort of thing we are talking about?
At the times in discussion, they had a choice. They chose to
promise something. If they were not able to deliver, then they should
have said so then. Instead, they chose to, apparently, deceive the
workers they had a contract with, according to your apparent thinking.
Then, that is OK with you because it was unsustainable.
Here I have serious questions about your morality. Regardless of
the company position, they did agree to the terms of the union
contracts. Do you really see it moral to abrogate those contracts
because they see it inconvenient?
I don't have any apology for my pro-honoring contract position. I
think it the moral thing to do.
Raise taxes to pay obligations. However, that never needed to be
the case if the same congress had no pilfered SS for so may things
unrelated. As a taxpayer and a payer into SS, I have a vested
interest in the viability of it. That the lobbyists for the wealthy
have played with it to my disadvantage is a corruption of the intent
and direction of it. They should pay to make sure it works.
I never said anything about prayer. I am not sure why you even
brought that into the equation.
Lets just say that is those that have a lot who have the money to
pay the lobbyists that influence the legislature. Those same people
profited mightily over the last, let's say 30 years. Now is the time
for those that profited to pay up for the costs of their profits.
--
Cheers! :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 15:07:41 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"Dave K" <...@4ax.com...
I keep forgetting Americans don't get irony. :-)
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 21:51:19 GMT, Dave K <...@att.net
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 15:07:41 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"
<...@example.invalid
So.... No answer? :)
--
No Bush was harmed in this message.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:45:18 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"Dave K" <...@4ax.com...
I was waiting for your answer to my question:
"How do you resolve the imminent impact of what was promised 40 years ago
with
what can be delivered today?"
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:47:06 GMT, Dave K <...@att.net
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:45:18 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"
<...@example.invalid
You make good on the promise. What you don't do is spend 40 years
destroying your ability to fulfill the promise in the interests of
short term gains.
Your turn.
--
Cheers! :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:57:31 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"Dave K" <...@4ax.com...
And if there's no money to do that, how? Dump it on the American taxpayer,
as usual?
Welcome to capitalism! As long as corporations depend on stockholders, and
as long as stockholders demand instant returns, the situation won't change.
But the money has gone bye-bye, and the promises linger on. How do you solve
the problem? Saying that companies should have done things differently forty
years ago is no help.
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:18:54 GMT, Dave K <...@att.net
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:57:31 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"
<...@example.invalid
No, that's not how it works. I asked some questions. You failed to
answer. I answered yours in good faith. Quid pro quo, et al..
From Message-ID: <...@4ax.com
?
What are your thoughts?
Of course, you don't have to address them. Perhaps you are not
able? ;)
--
No Bush was harmed in this message.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 17:36:27 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"Dave K" <...@4ax.com...
It may be as moral as all get-out, but when a company has to price its goods
out of the market in order to pay legacy costs, it's not feasible. No
actuary in the 1950s and 60s could have guessed that people would be living
25 years longer than they used to, or that American medical costs would grow
to be the biggest in the world. Conditions were vastly different when the
contracts were drawn up, and the drive back then was to avoid strikes at all
costs. The unions were guilty of blackmail in many cases-- give us
gold-plated benefits of we go on strike. So the short-term solution was to
pay them off. Now the long-term effects are causing thousands to lose their
jobs, and the companies they worked for are on the verge of bankruptcy. I
ask you again: where is the money going to come from to pay off those
promises? Don't dodge the question this time.
How? A bake sale?
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:16:56 GMT, Dave K <...@att.net
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 17:36:27 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"
<...@example.invalid
<snip
Well, we could go on about this, but there will never be anything
you tell me that excuses the companies that pilfered their retirement
funds over the years, and somehow, because they are hurting now, they
should not have to pay their obligations.
Those retirees worked for those companies, and part of their
compensation was their retirement. It is not right to take that away
from them.
Liquidate the companies if you have to. Strip every executive that
made the decisions of their wealth to pay into the fund. Get the
bonuses of the AIG people.<Facetious, I know
The companies created the problem by under funding their retirement
obligations. I see no reason why the guy who worked for a wage should
have to bear the burden while the fat cats get off scott free, and
better off.
We want to pick on individuals for not taking care of their
responsibilities. I see no reason a business should not be held to
the same standard.
Take their wealth? They've had good use of the retiree's part of it
for these years. Now it is time to pay the piper.
--
Cheers! :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 15:42:23 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"Dave K" <...@4ax.com...
I agree completely, if you can provide a master plan as to how to extract
money that isn't there. The values of these companies have dropped several
orders of magnitude in the past 6 months while legacy costs keep growing.
???
Not as much as you think.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/16/aig-to-help-ny-atty-gener_n_135442.htm l
No, as I've explained, conditions in the 1950s and '60s were radically
different than they are today. The executives' job back then was to keep the
company running full speed ahead and avoid strikes at all costs. They
committed the company to contracts and benefit plans in 1960 which their
actuaries told them would be perfectly safe in the year 2008-- so long as
conditions stayed the same as they were. Conditions have changed radically
since then in ways no actuary in the world could see back when the average
American wage ($4,000/yr) was one-tenth what it is today ($40,400/yr), life
expectancy after retirement at 65 was 2-3 years rather than 10+ years, the
cost of a hospital room was $25 and none of the pricey medical equipment and
medications used routinely today existed. Rising pay-in costs compensated to
a point, but that 1960 worker is now drawing out unsustainable amounts.
That's why few companies offer defined benefit pension plans today.
(Government agencies do, of course.)
At some point the company is going to be adding more pension and benefit
costs to its products and services than the product is worth to a buyer. The
American auto industry is a shining example: GM is already adding an average
of $1,500 to every vehicle it sells to cover p&b costs. By 2015 when the
baby boomers start retiring it will be an average of $5,000 per car, pricing
them out of the market. So where does the money come from to meet
obligations? (This doesn't affect GM so much because the pension and benefit
money is managed by the UAW, but generally if a company fails, so do the
pensions and benefits.) That's right, brother, from you and me
http://www.pbgc.gov/. So in effect the American taxpayer will be paying for
those 1960 contract terms.
As I've been saying, the owners and partners have lost the most of anybody.
Their CFOs were praised at the time for finding clever ways to add to
corporate profit. What they were doing was perfectly legal and aboveboard.
If anyone at Lehman Bros had guessed that the company would go insolvent in
less than a month, they would have shed those financial instruments so fast
Wall St would be spinning on its axis.
Because if I declare bankruptcy nobody cares but the bank. When a company
the size of AIG enters Chapter 7 it can bring down the economic system.
See above.
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:40:44 GMT, Dave K <...@att.net
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 15:42:23 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"
<...@example.invalid
<snip
I understand your explanation but disagree with the conclusions you
draw with it still, even having seen it time and time again.
The companies did underfund their retirement plans. They lobbied
for changes (not individually, but industry groupwise) to change the
actuarial requirements for what they had to keep on hand.
Retirement fund money was also part of their company value, and any
company with a well funded retirement fund had to fend off corporate
takeovers aimed at getting that money. That was more reason to reduce
their funding for retirement.
They diverted retirement funds for other purposes, just like our
congress does for social security.
The companies were short sighted in their view. If the companies
were not willing to sign on for the long haul then they should not
have signed the deals; it's just lazy management, and now that it is
time to pay up, they want to renege. I'm just not buying it.
--
"In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular."
~ Kathy Norris
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:02:33 -0500, "Allan Smith" <...@guesswhere-here.com
dogg,
Not much of a problem for the Pebble Bed. The tennis-ball sized pebbles are
pyrolytic graphite which can withstand 7,200 degrees F, are sealed in
ceramic coated with silicon carbide, and are designed to be geologically
stable for one to two million years.
Allan
--
One asks, many answer, all learn -- Plato, on the 'Forum
---
True civility is when every one gives to every other one every right
that they claim for themselves.
"trudogg" <...@4ax.com...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:07:05 -0500, trudogg <...@long.last
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:02:33 -0500, "Allan Smith"
<...@guesswhere-here.com
...or so the theory goes.
--
http://gssites.com/congrats/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:17:40 -0700, Larry Gates <...@example.invalid
I'm for nukes. We've got *lots* of places in the western US to store it.
You give New Mexico the right price, we'll do it too.
Heck we got the live ones here.
They're too risky now for private investors. The only way they are going
to be implemented is with public means. Public utilities aren't such a bad
thing.
When I say they're "too risky," I don't mean as a threat from radiation,
but making the facility pay with the alternative off burning cheap coal.
They are "shovel ready" things. Companies have been pricing this out and
doing the legwork for years now. I like the idea of federally funding six
to eight nukes. I'd rather deal with radioactivity than melt the planet.
--
larry gates
Perhaps you should compile your Perl with long doubles one of these
megaseconds.
-- Larry Wall in <...@wall.org>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:02:42 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"Larry Gates" <...@40tude.net...
The desert states would be better off with a square mile or two of solar
panels to handle daytime electrical needs, switching to the grid after dark.
Thin film panels are cheap enough now to make it practical.
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:00:05 -0700, Larry Gates <...@example.invalid
The sun here is *unbelievable* in terms of constancy and magnitude.
--
larry gates
That gets us out of deciding how to spell Reg[eE]xp?|RE . . .
Of course, then we have to decide what ref $re returns... :-)
-- Larry Wall in <...@wall.org>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:35:31 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"Larry Gates" <...@40tude.net...
Right! Solar panel farms in the desert states, wind farms in North and South
Dakota, nukes in the east and northwest. Now all we need is a switching grid
capable of handling it all.
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:52:51 -0500, "Allan Smith" <...@guesswhere-here.com
Ernie,
And capable of handling the increased load that would be created by electric
vehicles. Generation capability is of little use if it can't be delivered to
my house. I suspect that's why the power grid is first in the
infrastructure-spending plan.
The existing grid is a patchwork of varying architectures and designs,
cobbled together into a somewhat clumsy whole. It's components need to be
standardized and integrated under a single architecture.
Allan
--
One asks, many answer, all learn -- Plato, on the 'Forum
---
True civility is when every one gives to every other one every right
that they claim for themselves.
"Ernie Jurick" <...@giganews.com...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 11:52:03 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"Allan Smith" <...@giganews.com...
Electricars will be introduced gradually, not as a single shock load, the
way, say, an aluminum smelter is. And the drain from an electricar is spread
out over several hours. We'll have plenty of time to adjust and adapt. (I
wonder if state police cars will be equipped with inverters to aid drivers
who run out of volts?)
There are parts of the power grid more than 50 years old. It deserves a
makeover.
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:01:30 -0500, "Allan Smith" <...@guesswhere-here.com
dogg,
Just taser the car, see if it helps. ;-)
Allan
--
One asks, many answer, all learn -- Plato, on the 'Forum
---
True civility is when every one gives to every other one every right
that they claim for themselves.
"trudogg" <...@4ax.com...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:26:08 -0500, "Allan Smith" <...@guesswhere-here.com
dogg,
No, no, shock-therapy.
Triage would be the EMTs using the defibrillator on it.
Allan
--
One asks, many answer, all learn -- Plato, on the 'Forum
---
True civility is when every one gives to every other one every right
that they claim for themselves.
"trudogg" <...@4ax.com...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:01:31 -0500, trudogg <...@long.last
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:17:40 -0700, Larry Gates
<...@example.invalid
...I keep reading about and hearing that no one wants the storage
sites in their state.
--
http://gssites.com/congrats/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:01:12 -0700, Larry Gates <...@example.invalid
The more relevant point is that Obama doesn't want it, as revealed by his
budget. You won't see a new nuke in the states anytime soon.
--
larry gates
I'd put my money where my mouth is, but my mouth keeps moving.
-- Larry Wall in <...@wall.org>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:00:08 -0500, trudogg <...@long.last
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:01:12 -0700, Larry Gates
<...@example.invalid
...he is proving himself to be a fairly deliberate man. I think if a
reasonable, safe plan for nuclear power is presented it will get his
attention.
--
http://gssites.com/congrats/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:31:44 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"Larry Gates" <...@40tude.net...
Nukes are usually begun by private companies making a proposal. There could
be no money in the budget because it hasn't even been discussed yet.
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:53:27 -0600, JP <...@trashthisjinnette.com
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:31:44 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
Why is there a multi billion dollar bill for stimulus without discussion? Nobody even had time to
read it, much less discuss it. Why is there without any discussion?
JP
--
If you have it,
A truck brought it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 20:53:33 GMT, Dave K <...@att.net
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:53:27 -0600, JP <...@trashthisjinnette.comwrote:
<snip
I thought about going down the long list of things the Bush
administration did just like that. I changed my mind. You and I both
already know them.
The answer to your question is; it seems like the right thing to do
for the time. Believe me when I tell you I have some reservations
about some of them, especially those things thrown in by the
Republicans.
I know you'll never understand that. There are too many ideological
dogma between you and understanding.
--
Cheers! :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:04:23 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"JP" <...@4ax.com...
It was discussed to death in every medium, but in the end it was the
Democrats who had the votes and the Republicans who didn't. The purpose of
the money is to free up lending and credit again, a situation where time is
of the essence. In 6 months we'll know if it's working or not.
There's nothing in the stimulus bill about universal health care, again
because that's a whole separate issue not ready for funding. The health care
part of the package is partly to extend COBRA benefits for a year, giving
medical relief to those out of work, to help states deal with spiraling
Medicaid costs, run comparative effectiveness studies on drugs and
treatments, and to standardize health IT systems.
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:03:12 -0600, JP <...@trashthisjinnette.com
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:04:23 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
It was discussed in the media for how long? The bill wasn't even posted on the net until the night
before the vote and, even then, it wasnt' searchable. Are you telling me the congress had time to
read it? I know there was no debate at all on it. It was a Democrat wish list and they had to votes
to pass it without the Republicans.
And you think these "temporary" measures are really temporary? I don't. Once the government has
control of something they rarely give it up.
I don't know why people think the government can run anything efficiently. Look at the Post Office
and Amtrack. Both run by the gov and both far in the red. I don't see any way that the gov will be
able to run health care. Do you want a gov beaurocrat deciding if you really need that new heart
valve or if you are maybe too old to be allowed to have it. I wonder what country people will go to
in order to get that valve replaced.
Ever wonder how this will effect you? How about if you had to get to a government defined weight in
order to be eligible for health care. Think it can't happen? Check this:
"Imagine a country where the government regularly checks the waistlines of citizens over age 40.
Anyone deemed too fat would be required to undergo diet counseling. Those who fail to lose
sufficient weight could face further "reeducation" and their communities subject to stiff fines.
"Is this some nightmarish dystopia?
"No, this is contemporary Japan.
The Japanese government argues that it must regulate citizens' lifestyles because it is paying their
health costs. This highlights one of the greatly under appreciated dangers of "universal
healthcare." Any government that attempts to guarantee healthcare must also control its costs. The
inevitable next step will be to seek to control citizens' health and their behavior. Hence,
Americans should beware that if we adopt universal healthcare, we also risk creating a "nanny state
on steroids" antithetical to core American principles. "
The above from:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0107/p09s01-coop.html
There are already discussions going on about adding the body fat measurements to the DOT (Department
of Transportation) requirements to get a CDL (Commercial Drivers License). The reason? Because
there are some studies showing that people with higher body fat may be subject to having sleep apnia
and if you have sleep apnia you shouldn't be driving a truck. I'm subject to those rules and it may
cost me by job and lots of other drivers. It is really hard to conform to those government
standards. I know because I could barely stay in conformance while I was in the Navy.
If they get this included in the DOT regs they can be easily added to other department regs. Ever
read the governments body fat index measurements? Ever wonder if you would be viewed as overweight
or obese? Check here:
http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/
I would have to weigh 183 or less in order to not be considered overweight. I am 6 foot tall and
haven't weighed that little since I joined the Navy in 1965. I got out of boot camp weighing 197 and
was considered to be fit and in shape. Now that would be considered overweight.
Good luck letting the government run healthcare. I've put up with it for the last 44 years.
JP
--
If you have it,
A truck brought it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:13:13 -0800, "Ernie Jurick" <...@example.invalid
"JP" <...@4ax.com...
The media doesn't matter. It had to be written and approved by the House,
approved and modified by the Senate, then finally approved by the House.
That all involved lots of committee discussion until the House had a version
they could send up the hill, the Senate had lots of committee discussion to
come up with a version they could support, and the House again had lots of
committee discussion before it was finalized. What do you think those people
do all day?
It wasn't a referendum requiring public approval. It was strictly
informational, unlike White House practices for the past 8 years.
I'm not sure you understand how bills are written. The bill being reviewed
is broken down into single areas or topics for subcommittees, which are in
turn assisted by aides, interns, etc. After that it's reassembled and moved
to the Senate where the same thing happens. Then back to the House, ditto.
They are read over and over again.
Since the only word from the Republican side was NO! cloture was easy. :-)
Your opinion, of course.
France does a lovely job of it, for a fifth less money and higher quality to
boot. Are you saying America is inferior to France? And you can get that
heart valve anytime, even today: http://medicaltourism.com/
Slippery Slope Fallacy.
No, the Monitor never wrote that, and never would. Hysteria and flag-waving
are not their house styles. It's an Opinion piece written by someone who has
a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. The author is the founder
of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine, a far-right outfit consisting
of 3 people.
Japan is proactively attacking the "American Syndrome." Once the healthiest
people in Asia, with a diet low in animal fats and high in fruits and
vegetables, the Japanese have been slowly McDonaldized and are paying the
price for it. Here's the real story:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/06/04/japan-cracks-down-on-waist lines.html
Japan can get away with health requirements like this because it's a
monolithic society where conformity is the norm. That's also the reason they
have no civilian guns and a consequently tiny murder rate.
Quite true. But since there's no test for sleep apnea they're falling back
on the next-best thing, the known relationship between body fat and sleep
apnea. The purpose is to make the roads safer for all of us.
Since my height has decreased due to age, I'm now one point into Obese,
which I recognize and haphazardly try to do something about. but I'm not the
exercising type and never will be.
I was 186 for 30 years of adulthood, and I would kill to be that weight
again. I don't like lugging around the extra poundage and I know it will
eventually catch up with me, which is why I have frequent medical checks.
It can be done-- Viva la France! :-)
-- Ernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|