#41 Jan 3, 2013
And the WSJ talks about the pitiful increase in grid load threatening all the big utility boys.
...The Swiss financial services company UBS Securities released a report on Wednesday with a grim outlook for Entergy Corp.’s future cash flow from operating nuclear plants.
Under the heading “Entergy guidance clearly illustrates no cash generation from nukes,” UBS notes that the corporation “is unlikely to generate any meaningful cash” from wholesale commodities in 2013 and 2014, and UBS projects deficits for the corporation in 2015 and 2016.
What could likely improve the Louisiana-based firm’s fiscal outlook, according to the report, is the closing of two of the company’s nuclear plants, one of which is Vermont Yankee.
“We believe both its NY Fitzpatrick and Vermont Yankee plants are at risk of retirement given their small size; while potentially negative to sentiment, an announcement to retire the units would likely drive positive FCF (or free cash flow) revisions,” the report says.
Entergy spokesman Rob Williams said the company does not comment on the financial performance of individual plants.
#42 Jan 3, 2013
And the taxpayers will be left holding the radioactive bag with nothing but empty promises and a shamefully dismal decommisioning fund.
All they care about is the profits, the radioactive leagacy they give to us.
#43 Jan 3, 2013
If there was no commercial nuclear power industry, there would still be depleted uranium penetrators.
Maybe you should ask the UN or the WHO or the IAEA. Uranium does more harm due to its toxicity as a heavy metal than it does due to radiation.
Do you have the same concern for tungsten alloy penetrators or are you completely ignorant of them also?
I have, which is why I can't confidently state that you have no idea about what you are posting.
If you wish to stay ignorant, be my guest. Perhaps the echo chamber that is GMD would suit you better.
#44 Jan 3, 2013
"Uranium does more harm due to its toxicity as a heavy metal than it does due to radiation."
-which is one big reason nuclear is NOT 'green' as ewe lying nuketards have been claiming
our soldiers fighting for reSource$ and zionism and NWO global hegemony er I mean 'our freedoms' whatever have had to enter enemy vehicles and buildings hit with DU rounds and they've suffered major health problems from breathing that STILL radioactive DU dust
#45 Jan 4, 2013
So, you still con't have any evidence to back up your claim that my facts are not "straight"?
The best you can do is speculate and attack claims that I never made.
#46 Jan 4, 2013
Entergy's last LER update on the seal is the cause of the failure is a bad batch...the NRC says Entergy says in further investigation the seal material is only qualified to 225 degrees while licensing requires it be qualified for 400 degrees.
Plus they didn't know why the o-ring failed for years...the cover-up.
#47 Jan 4, 2013
Priceless, you posted nothing but baseless speculation and then attempt to accuse me of the same thing. Thanks for proving my point hypocrite.
You implied that commercial nuclear power is directly responsible for the use of depleted uranium penetrators. You are a liar.
You seem to care so much that you make ignorant post after ignorant post on the subject but are unwilling or unable to type "depleted uranium + who or iaea or hps" into Google.
Afraid you find quotes like these?
"These theoretical considerations also form the base of the assessment recently published by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2001) which also excluded any link between exposure to depleted uranium and the onset of congenital abnormalities or serious toxic chemical effects on organs."
Let me guess, you are one of those hypocritical idiots who trust the UN on global climate change but not on ionizing radiation.
When you've had enough schooling on DU, we can move on to how $30 billion dollars in fusion R&D is a "disgraceful lack of funding" and how 3 curies of Tritium into the Ct river doesn't mean jack shit in terms of environmental damage.
#48 Jan 4, 2013
#49 Jan 4, 2013
Yes my son?
#50 Jan 4, 2013
I need a no show job making big bucks?
And my history won't be held against me.
#51 Jan 4, 2013
Mike, I'm bogarting your nrc phone call. Thanks for the call in info.
#52 Jan 4, 2013
Man you gotta stop causing trouble-
Man Kicked Out Of Darts Tournament For Looking Like Jesus
#53 Jan 4, 2013
the first thing that comes up in my google search link in #44 is the great documentary 'Beyond Treason'
Beyond Treason: The True Story of Depleted Uranium
Joyce Riley has been a great trooper for the troops, she has her own show but was on the national radio in August, link below--
She cited a variety issues that contribute to vets' suicides and illnesses.
In addition to family problems that can develop during a soldier's absence, vets are exposed to contaminants while working in depleted uranium areas. They can develop breathing problems, headaches, and cardiovascular issues but are told to "man up" and prescribed various psychotropic medications, she continued.
#54 Jan 4, 2013
Remember, you can pose questions to me or the NRC...if I don't make myself clear.
Well, the NRC isn't required to answer you or is Entergy...
#55 Jan 4, 2013
there will be no questions brah. I am calling and pretending to be you so that I can tarnish your stellar reputation among the scientific community. (Sarcasm)
#56 Jan 4, 2013
I am simply asking you to back up your argument with good evidence, which you are still failing to do.
Considering the huge volumes of depleted uranium manufactured by the nuclear power industry my statement: "If it were not for the tons of depleted uranium laying around as a result of nuclear fission programs, it would likely have been too expensive to even consider." is a perfectly reasonable assessment.
Especially considering how expensive it is to deal with it in a responsible manner.
Lets have a look at what some responsible people have to say about it: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/precauti...
..."Is DU a hazard?
On the basis of reports by the Royal Society and others, the MoD does not consider DU is ‘safe’. It is hazardous (making the accepted health and safety distinction between a hazard and a risk). Dr Liam Fox, UK Defence Minister, 2011.
DU’s chemical toxicity and radioactivity, when combined with its propensity to combust and form particles of a respirable size, result in it being a recognised hazard. DU has been intensively studied and a wealth of new research, much of it carried out by the US military, indicates that DU may have an impact on health through a variety of different chemical and radiation-induced mechanisms. Much of this research post-dates the widely cited WHO Monograph on DU’s risks and the UK Royal Society’s study.
As Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste, its storage, use, disposal and transportation is tightly regulated in peacetime. Civil radiation protection norms seek to avoid unnecessary exposures wherever possible, and any exposure must be justified on the basis of its wider benefits.
Militaries have adopted a precautionary approach to DU, avoiding unnecessary exposures through hazard awareness training and providing health monitoring as required. When forced to operate within peacetime health and environmental regulations, DU users face considerable challenges.
It appears, therefore, that DU’s intrinsically hazardous nature is well accepted and that its uncontrolled or accidental dispersal into the environment is broadly viewed as undesirable." ...
#57 Jan 4, 2013
And what of the UN? Well ...
UN General Assembly supports precautionary approach to depleted uranium weapons
"155 states have supported a resolution calling for a precautionary approach to depleted uranium weapons during voting at the UN General Assembly.
3 December 2012
Following initial voting on the NAM-sponsored resolution Effects of Arms and Armaments Containing Depleted Uranium at the UN First Committee in November, where it was supported by 138 countries, 155 states have now supported the far reaching resolution at the UN General Assembly. Just four countries - the US, UK, France and Israel - voted against and 27 abstained, down from 28 in the November vote.
The resolution was informed by the UN Environment’s Programme’s (UNEP) repeated calls for a precautionary approach to the use and post-conflict management of the controversial weapons. The passage of this fourth General Assembly resolution is a further challenge to the use of radioactive and chemically toxic conventional weapons that can lead to environmental contamination and humanitarian harm.
“While non-binding, these resolutions are significant as they demonstrate global governmental opinion on DU weapons,” said an ICBUW spokesperson.“That just four states actively opposed the resolution clearly shows that governments around the world deem the use of DU to be unacceptable. ICBUW welcomes the inclusion of precaution in this year’s text and hopes that it will provide the trigger for meaningful debate about the applicability of peacetime environmental and health protection norms for civilians facing the legacy of military-origin toxics like DU.”
The resolution recalls the positions taken by the UNEP after their fieldwork on DU affected sites in the Balkans, which called for a precautionary approach to DU. In UNEP’s view, precaution should be backed by clean-up and decontamination, awareness raising measures to reduce the risk of civilian exposure and the long-term monitoring of contaminated sites.
The resolution built on previous texts and once again included a call for greater transparency from DU users. It contained the same language as 2010’s resolution which called for states to transfer quantitative and geographic data on DU usage to affected governments when requested to do so. The US had refused to share data on DU use in Iraq with UNEP, something that, together with security problems, ensured that they were unable to fully survey contamination in the country. 2010's resolution was passed by the General Assembly with 148 votes in favour and 30 abstentions." ...
#58 Jan 4, 2013
... "Abstentions were down from 2010, with Macedonia and Kyrgyzstan voting in favour. Bulgaria, which had previously abstained, was absent from the vote. Nevertheless, 27 abstentions were recorded, these included Albania, Andorra, Australia, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and Ukraine.
Australian and Swedish campaigners reacted angrily to the news. Donna Mulhearn of the Australian Campaign to Ban Uranium Weapons accused her government of breaching its 'Australian Agenda' or the pledges it had made while seeking a nomination for a Security Council seat. Swedish campaigners were once again left puzzled by their government's continued refusal to support the vote in the face of a growing interest in conflict and the environment.
Once again the US, UK and France were strongly opposed, their primary argument being that the they do not recognise the potential health impact of the weapons. They were also strongly opposed to the inclusion of UNEP's call for a precautionary approach in the resolution's preamble. While the specific quote was from UNEP's 2010 report to the UN Secretary General on DU, UNEP had made similar calls for a precautionary approach after each of its studies in the Balkans. The US, UK and France also argued that the quote was selective and did not reflect the complete statement, however in offering their own version of the wording they also selectively quoted the statement, ignoring the call from UNEP for "action be taken to clean up and decontaminate the polluted sites...awareness-raising among local populations and future monitoring."
As in previous years the influential EU bloc was split on the issue,and it is likely that presure from the US, UK and France played a significant role in this. Nevertheless, abstentions should not be seen as endorsement of DU munitions as realpolitik and diplomatic bargaining plays a significant role. Ultimately only four states were willing to stand up for the continued use of the weapons.
A fifth resolution on the issue is scheduled for autumn 2014."
#59 Jan 4, 2013
Here come the kooks.
#60 Jan 4, 2013
And as for you little hissy fit:
"When you've had enough schooling on DU, we can move on to how $30 billion dollars in fusion R&D is a "disgraceful lack of funding" and how 3 curies of Tritium into the Ct river doesn't mean jack shit in terms of environmental damage. "
Considering the potential payoff that fusion power presents, yes $30 billion dollars is viewed by many a ""disgraceful lack of funding".
And if you think that the only environmental damage Entergy's reprehensible behavior and gross incompetence has caused is "3 curies of Tritium into the Ct river", you are just shouting out to the world how reckless and incompetent you are for offering up such a distorted, failed assessment.
Add your comments below
|Former employee suing Mack Molding over alleged...||Jan '18||Comrade Sanders||2|
|Diversity dialogue to continue in Brattleboro (Aug '17)||Dec '17||Comrade Sanders||6|
|Grout Pond National Forest Area to Become Paid ...||Nov '17||Defiant1||3|
|Gentlewolf released on bail (Jun '07)||Oct '17||amen||3|
|Tellman Knudson (Jun '12)||Jul '17||Angela Hernandez||51|
|What Does It Take To Get the Brattleboro Reform... (Jun '17)||Jun '17||Kay||1|
|Review: Biologic Integrative Health - Samantha ... (Feb '10)||Jun '17||Amy||65|
Find what you want!
Search Brattleboro Forum Now
Copyright © 2018 Topix LLC