Indeed, other countries have been able to build quickly.
Really? If that's what you really think you haven't seen many reports about construction delays. Try this one: Hooked on Subsidies:
"Investors are also wary of nuclear plants because of the construction delays and cost over-runs that have historically plagued the industry. For instance, the Areva/Siemens nuclear power plant being built for TVO in Finland-the first nuclear power plant to be built in a relatively free energy market in decades-once scheduled to be operational within 54 months, is now two years behind schedule and 60% over budget. Nor have these construction delays had anything to do with regulatory obstruction or organized public opposition."
"TheGeneral Electric ABWR was the first third generation power plant approved. The first two ABWR's were commissioned in Japan in 1996 and 1997. These took just over 3 years to construct and were completed on budget. Their construction costs were around $2000 per KW. Two additional ABWR's are being constructed in Taiwan. However these have faced unexpected delays and are now at least 2 years behind schedule."
"CEZ Declines for Second Day as Czech Utility Delays Nuclear Investment
"The company postponed the selection of suppliers for two additional reactors at Temelin until 2011, supervisory board member Eduard Janota said today. Construction may be delayed by as much as several years, Hospodarske Noviny newspaper reported, citing a CEZ employee it did not name. CEZ will also reduce investments in Bulgaria, Romania and Poland, the newspaper said."
Those were in the Czech Republic, Finland, and Taiwan not the US, so US environmental regulations can't be blamed. People say how France gets a lot of energy from nuclear power, yet it was the French company Areva which is majority owned by the French government, that was building Finland's Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant.
You can go with big reactors or small reactors, but it will always be cheaper to generate 100 GW with one big reactor rather than 10,000 small reactors.
Where are your citations? I provided 6 yet you discount them without providing your own.
A bit unfair to make the bank liable for the NRC's and PUC's decisions.
What's unfair is forcing everyone to pay so nuclear energy will make a profit. It's also unfair to make others pay for pollution and other external costs.
Oh, and that's not just nuclear power but fossil fuels, and all the other sources that get subsidies. In absolute amounts coal gets the most in subsidies. It also gets to pass on external costs such as green house gas emissions. Fact is is through the 1990s and 2000s until Obama came to office coal, nuclear power, and oil all got billions of dollars a year in subsidies, as did corn based biofuels whereas all other alternative energy sources had to share maybe one billion dollars a year. Chevron agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies. Markey: "My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'" Oil Subsidies in the Dock.
Why wouldn't Constellation get a loan from the banks?
Don't banks kind of do that by way of its being their business?
Banks, good ones at least, don't give away money. They have to weigh the risks they will not be paid back. And quite simply nuclear power plants do not make money without government assistance. There is not a nuclear power plant that without subsidies would not be profitable. That is why the industry wants CO2 capped or taxed, to raise the cost of fossil fuel fired power plants.
I've heard that elsewhere but don't know it. What I do know is that I spent almost $2000 for a Nokia monitor for graphics and photography and other than it's size it sucks. I got it instead of another because it got good reviews.
That's not my issue at all, but it seems to be yours. To me Sun was a business and corporation and in order to survive they needed to offer something at a cost others were willing to pay for which would allow them to make a profit. The fact that Sun instead used billions of dollars to buy other companies didn't help them.
The Mythology: The old licensing process was a major factor in the collapse of nuclear power in the U.S.
It has now been repaired by changes in law and regulatory policy, paving the way for the renaissance.
As if that's not enough here are some more links:
Hooked on Subsidies...
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
Boiling The Frog: Nuclear Optimism Hides True Costs Till It's Too Late
"The Frog Jumps: The Ontario Story. Last week the Ontario government put plans to build 2 new next-generation reactors on hold, after it received bids "more than three times higher than what the Province expected to pay", according to a story in the Toronto Star. The only "compliant" bid -- one where the supplier would be sufficiently at risk if costs exceeded the amount quoted -- was reportedly a $26 billion quote from Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd, equal to roughly $10,800 per kW."
There's enormous amount of infrastructure that uses gasoline
Yes, and it was built up over tyme. Rebuilding the electrical grid would be faster, as well as allowing more generation to be added easily. With a smart grid geothermal energy could be tapped where feasible, we recently had an article about how West Virginia was Geothermically active, and solar and wind where they are available.
You could get some better economies of scale with larger reactors than we build now but it's hard to transmit and distribute electricity from anything much larger then what we build now.
The summary's hyperbole is completely opposite to reality. The reason the energy companies aren't building so much these days is because electricity demand has dramatically decreased compared to 3 years ago.
While the title is right, the reason why is not. The only reason energy companies aren't building nuclear power plants is because they can't get government subsidies to build them. The Nuclear Power Industry is Hooked on Subsidies:
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
Ellison just lucked into some cheap IP by saving up his cash when times were good, and taking advantage of others who didn't when times turned sour
Those "others" didn't have to sellout, they wanted to. Therefore they were not adversely taken advantage of. Take a look at Sun's major stockholders. Number 2 was Scott McNeally, one of Sun's founders. He walked away with more than $130 million. Number 1 was Barclays Global Investors, an angel investor, who got more than $350 Million.
If Google had licensed Java like every other company doing a port like Android perhaps Sun would still be a viable company today.
BS! Sun open sourced Java under the GPL, allowing anyone and everyone to use it. There was no paying for a license required. Sun had trouble compeating against both Intel and Microsoft, Intel with SPARC processors and MS with Solaris. While Sun used Intel, and AMD, processors it also spent money on SPARC. Sun also used Linux yet spent money on Solaris.
Google currently has some good margins and takes in a lot of cash. if they were to develop their own visual studio clone for android development it would cost a lot of money that they would have to eat in lower margins and lower stock price.
Being from Nokia, forget it. They're just as bad as other companies and have lawsuits against competitors. Personally, I was turned off by them after I bought an expensive Nokia monitor, which got good reviews. It didn't display colours accurately, it showed a greenish tint, so when I called while it was still under warranty I was told to ship it in. I had to pay for shipment but when I got it back it showed the same tint. Some may say that that was because of the graphics card in the computer, but the green tint was displayed when I've had different PCs connected.
Large businesses, like the ones listed in the article, can absorb a 100+ million judgment.
True but if you go back to the original post you replied to which says "If this madness continues, companies will spend 90% of their revenue filing or defending dozens of lawsuits" then it's not. The only ones that benefit from such madness are the lawyers. Unless of course those companies having to pay turn around and campaign to end patent abuse if not patents altogether.
Gee, why did I know that there would be at least one Apple Hater
Gee, I knew my suspension that my post would drive an Apple fanbois to come out was true. And as is typically true this one is dead wrong. As a matter of fact I am typing this on my MacBook Pro, which I like.
And as also is typical of fanbois, this one discounts anything that opposes their beliefs. Even when it's true.
Ben Franklin was much smarter than I am and had extremely harsh and accurate things to say about patents in general. As did Thomas Jefferson about the banks that now own them all.
Thomas Jefferson started out against patents too, however his friend James Madison convinced him patents could be good.
Maybe it's for a 'Receiver having concealed antenna that suffers poor reception when held the wrong way'?? That would be a little more specific (and a touch less obvious);-)
Good thing that Apple avoided that with the iPhone 4 then.
What GP says is not a free market. In a true free market there would not be patents. Of course truth doesn't matter to some, such as those who oppose free markets.
Remember Apple wasn't doing well till they got the iPod out. The iPhone made that cake really fatting:P
No, Apple was coming back from financial ruin years before the iPod came out which was in 2001. Apple's renaissance started in 1998 with the release of the iMac line. Since then Apple has come out with one hit after another, even with devices others had first.
For full disclosure, I typing this on my MacBook Pro and I may replace it with another. However I don't have an iPod or an iPhone. For now my Sony Walkman CD player works fine and when I get a new phone it may be an Android. And under my desk I have 2 PCs, a dual-boot PC with Windows and Linux, and a second PC with Linux.
Obviously I know what both does, however one could argue about their methods.
But you didn't argue about their methods, you said they were unnecessary. And while I don't know if you were one of those complaining about banking practices, though I wouldn't be surprised if you did after all you say they're unneeded, because new banking regulations passed and is now law I have to pay for banking. I used to have "free checking" but since this summer I now pay a banking fee. It's not much, only $10 a month, but I am on disability and that is being fucked with. So any more amount I have to pay hurts me.
Quite simply I hope all of congress loses their seats. Well 1/3 of the senate that is, they only have to run every 6 years, but all of the House of Reps have to run every 2 years. And I'd like to see both Democrats and Republicans lose their seats.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, other countries have been able to build quickly.
Really? If that's what you really think you haven't seen many reports about construction delays. Try this one: Hooked on Subsidies:
"Investors are also wary of nuclear plants because of the construction delays and cost over-runs that have historically plagued the industry. For instance, the Areva/Siemens nuclear power plant being built for TVO in Finland-the first nuclear power plant to be built in a relatively free energy market in decades-once scheduled to be operational within 54 months, is now two years behind schedule and 60% over budget. Nor have these construction delays had anything to do with regulatory obstruction or organized public opposition."
"The General Electric ABWR was the first third generation power plant approved. The first two ABWR's were commissioned in Japan in 1996 and 1997. These took just over 3 years to construct and were completed on budget. Their construction costs were around $2000 per KW. Two additional ABWR's are being constructed in Taiwan. However these have faced unexpected delays and are now at least 2 years behind schedule."
"CEZ Declines for Second Day as Czech Utility Delays Nuclear Investment
"The company postponed the selection of suppliers for two additional reactors at Temelin until 2011, supervisory board member Eduard Janota said today. Construction may be delayed by as much as several years, Hospodarske Noviny newspaper reported, citing a CEZ employee it did not name. CEZ will also reduce investments in Bulgaria, Romania and Poland, the newspaper said."
Those were in the Czech Republic, Finland, and Taiwan not the US, so US environmental regulations can't be blamed. People say how France gets a lot of energy from nuclear power, yet it was the French company Areva which is majority owned by the French government, that was building Finland's Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant.
Falcon
You can go with big reactors or small reactors, but it will always be cheaper to generate 100 GW with one big reactor rather than 10,000 small reactors.
Where are your citations? I provided 6 yet you discount them without providing your own.
Falcon
A bit unfair to make the bank liable for the NRC's and PUC's decisions.
What's unfair is forcing everyone to pay so nuclear energy will make a profit. It's also unfair to make others pay for pollution and other external costs.
Oh, and that's not just nuclear power but fossil fuels, and all the other sources that get subsidies. In absolute amounts coal gets the most in subsidies. It also gets to pass on external costs such as green house gas emissions. Fact is is through the 1990s and 2000s until Obama came to office coal, nuclear power, and oil all got billions of dollars a year in subsidies, as did corn based biofuels whereas all other alternative energy sources had to share maybe one billion dollars a year. Chevron agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies. Markey: "My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'" Oil Subsidies in the Dock.
Falcon
Why wouldn't Constellation get a loan from the banks?
Don't banks kind of do that by way of its being their business?
Banks, good ones at least, don't give away money. They have to weigh the risks they will not be paid back. And quite simply nuclear power plants do not make money without government assistance. There is not a nuclear power plant that without subsidies would not be profitable. That is why the industry wants CO2 capped or taxed, to raise the cost of fossil fuel fired power plants.
Falcon
I've heard that elsewhere but don't know it. What I do know is that I spent almost $2000 for a Nokia monitor for graphics and photography and other than it's size it sucks. I got it instead of another because it got good reviews.
Falcon
That's not my issue at all, but it seems to be yours. To me Sun was a business and corporation and in order to survive they needed to offer something at a cost others were willing to pay for which would allow them to make a profit. The fact that Sun instead used billions of dollars to buy other companies didn't help them.
Falcon
Licensing costs are too expensive to justify anything but the 1600 MWe behemoths using standard fuel cycles with proven technology.
Citation needed.
Here's my own, The average non-fuel O&M cost for a nuclear power plant in 2009 was 1.46 cents / kWh. That includes licensing. Or this:
Issue #1: The New Licensing Process [ppt]
As if that's not enough here are some more links:
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
"Cost overruns, delays in building reactors are sapping a nuclear revival"
"The Frog Jumps: The Ontario Story. Last week the Ontario government put plans to build 2 new next-generation reactors on hold, after it received bids "more than three times higher than what the Province expected to pay", according to a story in the Toronto Star. The only "compliant" bid -- one where the supplier would be sufficiently at risk if costs exceeded the amount quoted -- was reportedly a $26 billion quote from Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd, equal to roughly $10,800 per kW."
There's enormous amount of infrastructure that uses gasoline
Yes, and it was built up over tyme. Rebuilding the electrical grid would be faster, as well as allowing more generation to be added easily. With a smart grid geothermal energy could be tapped where feasible, we recently had an article about how West Virginia was Geothermically active, and solar and wind where they are available.
Falcon
You could get some better economies of scale with larger reactors than we build now but it's hard to transmit and distribute electricity from anything much larger then what we build now.
You were saying what again?
Falcon
The summary's hyperbole is completely opposite to reality. The reason the energy companies aren't building so much these days is because electricity demand has dramatically decreased compared to 3 years ago.
While the title is right, the reason why is not. The only reason energy companies aren't building nuclear power plants is because they can't get government subsidies to build them. The Nuclear Power Industry is Hooked on Subsidies:
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
Falcon
Ellison just lucked into some cheap IP by saving up his cash when times were good, and taking advantage of others who didn't when times turned sour
Those "others" didn't have to sellout, they wanted to. Therefore they were not adversely taken advantage of. Take a look at Sun's major stockholders. Number 2 was Scott McNeally, one of Sun's founders. He walked away with more than $130 million. Number 1 was Barclays Global Investors, an angel investor, who got more than $350 Million.
Falcon
If Google had licensed Java like every other company doing a port like Android perhaps Sun would still be a viable company today.
BS! Sun open sourced Java under the GPL, allowing anyone and everyone to use it. There was no paying for a license required. Sun had trouble compeating against both Intel and Microsoft, Intel with SPARC processors and MS with Solaris. While Sun used Intel, and AMD, processors it also spent money on SPARC. Sun also used Linux yet spent money on Solaris.
Falcon
Google currently has some good margins and takes in a lot of cash. if they were to develop their own visual studio clone for android development it would cost a lot of money that they would have to eat in lower margins and lower stock price.
If Google has $5 Billion to invest in an off-shore wind farm project they have the money to put into Android development as well.
Falcon
Being from Nokia, forget it. They're just as bad as other companies and have lawsuits against competitors. Personally, I was turned off by them after I bought an expensive Nokia monitor, which got good reviews. It didn't display colours accurately, it showed a greenish tint, so when I called while it was still under warranty I was told to ship it in. I had to pay for shipment but when I got it back it showed the same tint. Some may say that that was because of the graphics card in the computer, but the green tint was displayed when I've had different PCs connected.
Falcon
Using a reply like the subjectline like typical fanbois you can't even use a reasoned logical reply.
Falcon
Large businesses, like the ones listed in the article, can absorb a 100+ million judgment.
True but if you go back to the original post you replied to which says "If this madness continues, companies will spend 90% of their revenue filing or defending dozens of lawsuits" then it's not. The only ones that benefit from such madness are the lawyers. Unless of course those companies having to pay turn around and campaign to end patent abuse if not patents altogether.
Falcon
Gee, why did I know that there would be at least one Apple Hater
Gee, I knew my suspension that my post would drive an Apple fanbois to come out was true. And as is typically true this one is dead wrong. As a matter of fact I am typing this on my MacBook Pro, which I like.
And as also is typical of fanbois, this one discounts anything that opposes their beliefs. Even when it's true.
Falcon
Ben Franklin was much smarter than I am and had extremely harsh and accurate things to say about patents in general. As did Thomas Jefferson about the banks that now own them all.
Thomas Jefferson started out against patents too, however his friend James Madison convinced him patents could be good.
Falcon
Someone figured out how to make the phone actually work with an internal antenna.
Except portable radios have had internal antennas since the 1970s and least and they worked. Except Economists say copyright and patent laws are killing innovation; hurting economy. Study: Free Markets Superior to Patent Monopolies.
Falcon
Maybe it's for a 'Receiver having concealed antenna that suffers poor reception when held the wrong way'?? That would be a little more specific (and a touch less obvious) ;-)
Good thing that Apple avoided that with the iPhone 4 then.
In denial are we?
Falcon
Apple still has an army of fans in the media
And Slashdot still has an army of anti-Apple zealots who will try to use anything against Apple.
Falcon
What GP says is not a free market. In a true free market there would not be patents. Of course truth doesn't matter to some, such as those who oppose free markets.
Falcon
Remember Apple wasn't doing well till they got the iPod out. The iPhone made that cake really fatting :P
No, Apple was coming back from financial ruin years before the iPod came out which was in 2001. Apple's renaissance started in 1998 with the release of the iMac line. Since then Apple has come out with one hit after another, even with devices others had first.
For full disclosure, I typing this on my MacBook Pro and I may replace it with another. However I don't have an iPod or an iPhone. For now my Sony Walkman CD player works fine and when I get a new phone it may be an Android. And under my desk I have 2 PCs, a dual-boot PC with Windows and Linux, and a second PC with Linux.
Falcon
Obviously I know what both does, however one could argue about their methods.
But you didn't argue about their methods, you said they were unnecessary. And while I don't know if you were one of those complaining about banking practices, though I wouldn't be surprised if you did after all you say they're unneeded, because new banking regulations passed and is now law I have to pay for banking. I used to have "free checking" but since this summer I now pay a banking fee. It's not much, only $10 a month, but I am on disability and that is being fucked with. So any more amount I have to pay hurts me.
Quite simply I hope all of congress loses their seats. Well 1/3 of the senate that is, they only have to run every 6 years, but all of the House of Reps have to run every 2 years. And I'd like to see both Democrats and Republicans lose their seats.
Falcon
reasonable approach to politics then little will fix the problem.
As if a centrist approach is practiced now. NOT!!!
Falcon