|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy |
![]() |
Statistical
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 07:11 AM Original message |
Emirates Nuclear Energy Corp chooses site for first UAE nuclear power station |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ShortnFiery
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 07:12 AM Response to Original message |
1. Let's hope there's no unrest in the UAE, otherwise that's one big ass target for terrorists? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 11:02 AM Response to Reply #1 |
9. A nuclear reactor is not exactly a soft target. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ShortnFiery
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 01:59 PM Response to Reply #9 |
25. No, there's more ways to attack a nuclear site than a cruise missile. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith
![]() |
Sat Apr-24-10 09:28 AM Response to Reply #25 |
63. Many fewer ways, actually. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 07:43 AM Response to Original message |
2. Can't wait to see all the "Export Land Model" posts on TOD |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 08:44 AM Response to Original message |
3. This says something given their solar potential. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 08:53 AM Response to Reply #3 |
4. It shows either they are REALLY bad at math or maybe just maybe nuclear is cheaper ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 08:57 AM Response to Reply #4 |
5. Fixed-cost loss-leader |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 09:22 AM Response to Reply #5 |
6. Really? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 10:58 AM Response to Reply #6 |
8. Duh |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 10:49 AM Response to Reply #4 |
7. Is the price or completion date guaranteed? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 11:04 AM Response to Reply #7 |
10. Ahh, another vague and cryptic wall of text from you. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 11:07 AM Response to Reply #10 |
12. I know all those pesky "facts" and that onerous "reading thing" aren't for you... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 11:06 AM Response to Reply #7 |
11. "the probable range of cost of new nuclear is going to be $0.25 - $0.30 /kwh." only in crazy land |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 11:13 AM Response to Reply #11 |
13. No reactors would be built here if the costs were not externalized. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 11:23 AM Response to Reply #13 |
14. You got it Kris. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 12:02 PM Response to Reply #14 |
15. More bullshit sophistry. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 12:08 PM Response to Reply #15 |
16. They aren't false claims. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 12:23 PM Response to Reply #16 |
17. Yes they are. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 12:29 PM Response to Reply #17 |
18. $4K overnight which he pads with $another $4K in cost overruns and then another $3K in interest. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 12:51 PM Response to Reply #18 |
19. You never stop with the false statements. I've never seen anyone like that except used car salesmen |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 01:01 PM Response to Reply #19 |
20. How can it be false I provided the exact quote. Here it is again: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 01:51 PM Response to Reply #20 |
23. Table 5.3 Base Case Assumptions, Chapter 5, page 43 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 02:01 PM Response to Reply #23 |
26. 2009 man. 2009! Things change. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 02:23 PM Response to Reply #26 |
31. They stepped on their dicks with the 2003 report |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 02:31 PM Response to Reply #31 |
32. "WHILE THE INDEPENDENT STUDIES HAVE BEEN MUCH, MUCH CLOSER TO THE MARK." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 02:54 PM Response to Reply #32 |
35. SOP: You can't contest his facts so you attack his integrity. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 03:05 PM Response to Reply #35 |
37. So it just happens to be more than 2 standard eviations above ALL the other studies? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 03:11 PM Response to Reply #37 |
39. It is what it is. We dealt with those false assertions of yours earlier, let's do it again |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 03:18 PM Response to Reply #39 |
41. I already provided exact link to MIT paper and exact quote that debunks that. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 03:24 PM Response to Reply #41 |
44. No you didn't. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 03:30 PM Response to Reply #44 |
45. Don't finance nuclear reactors on credit cards and you will be fine. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 03:44 PM Response to Reply #45 |
46. Deleted message |
kristopher
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 04:24 PM Response to Reply #45 |
47. Severance used *lower* numbers than the 2009 study you point to. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 05:24 PM Response to Reply #47 |
51. Lower as in highter? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 05:28 PM Response to Reply #51 |
55. Thanks for your continued search for truth. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 06:05 PM Response to Reply #51 |
56. You have lost your grip on reality? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 06:18 PM Response to Reply #56 |
57. Once again 2003 not 2009. You love going back to outdated study (except for the results) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 06:27 PM Response to Reply #57 |
58. Stat's you have proven repeatedly that you are out of touch with reality. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer
![]() |
Sun Apr-25-10 04:20 AM Response to Reply #58 |
65. You have yet to actually respond to his logical comments about rates. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 07:17 PM Response to Reply #47 |
59. Speaking of math skills (and cognitive dissonance) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 01:07 PM Response to Reply #16 |
21. "MIT study is valid" - gee, that didn't work out so well with their 2003 cost estimate |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 01:45 PM Response to Reply #21 |
22. Have you looked at a chart of commodity prices between 2003 and 2007? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 01:55 PM Response to Reply #22 |
24. Old news - did you read the 2007 Keystone report? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 02:03 PM Response to Reply #24 |
27. Yeah and 2009 MIT report cost estimtate was UPDATED because... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 02:12 PM Response to Reply #27 |
28. "it is a crazy concept for anti-nukkers " |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 02:16 PM Response to Reply #28 |
29. Well that isn't exactly correct. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 02:19 PM Response to Reply #27 |
30. You're blaming it on "commodity prices"? ROFLMAO! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 02:34 PM Response to Reply #30 |
33. I think it is you who does not know what they are talking about. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 02:39 PM Response to Reply #33 |
34. I have seen no reason to make that statement. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 03:01 PM Response to Reply #33 |
36. Stop, you guys are killing me; my sides are splitting from laughing so hard. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 03:07 PM Response to Reply #36 |
38. 4X who said that. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 03:14 PM Response to Reply #38 |
40. Poor little feller ain't got a clue... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 03:19 PM Response to Reply #40 |
42. Have fun with your 15 new nuclear reactors. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 05:05 PM Response to Reply #40 |
48. You are the most belittling person on this forum. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 05:17 PM Response to Reply #48 |
50. Time for the evening shift. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 05:25 PM Response to Reply #50 |
52. I stopped wasting my time on denialists for awhile now. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 05:25 PM Response to Reply #50 |
53. Once you admitted that nuclear cost reductions "remain to be seen..." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 05:26 PM Response to Reply #50 |
54. I knew I'd gotten as far as I could with you. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 03:23 PM Response to Reply #36 |
43. Obviously, according to the pro-nukes, Steve Kidd has zero credibility! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer
![]() |
Fri Apr-23-10 05:06 PM Response to Reply #43 |
49. Who said that and where? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Merchant Marine
![]() |
Sat Apr-24-10 01:00 AM Response to Original message |
60. Bandwagon Effect.png has been posted 7 times and counting |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Systematic Chaos
![]() |
Sat Apr-24-10 02:19 AM Response to Reply #60 |
61. Yanno -- just in case the nuances of it escape you the first six times. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Sat Apr-24-10 08:44 AM Response to Reply #61 |
62. Adblock plus works great for all kinds of annoying ads. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Systematic Chaos
![]() |
Sat Apr-24-10 07:57 PM Response to Reply #62 |
64. I've only used ABP for at least 2-3 years now and never noticed that! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nihil
![]() |
Mon Apr-26-10 07:27 AM Response to Reply #62 |
66. Thanks for that! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Mon Apr-26-10 07:33 AM Response to Reply #66 |
67. I looked into it but it looks like you can't. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nihil
![]() |
Mon Apr-26-10 08:29 AM Response to Reply #67 |
68. Ah well. Life's like that at times. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Thu Jun 20th 2024, 02:02 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy |
![]() |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC