backtop

Print 71 comment(s) - last by Mint.. on Mar 7 at 1:30 PM

  (Source: cdc.gov)
The project aims to support private sector testing, development and licensing of SMR technologies

The U.S. Department of Energy has announced that it will begin developing small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) technologies along with its Savannah River Site (SRS) through three new public-private partnerships.

The three new partnerships are part of the Energy Department's efforts to cement nuclear power as an energy solution in the U.S. Over the past three years alone, the Energy Department has invested $170 million in research grants regarding advanced reactor concepts and safety. The Energy Department just recently made a $10 million investment in new research that seeks to solve common problems in the nuclear power industry.

"The Obama Administration continues to believe that low-carbon nuclear energy has an important role to play in America's energy future," said Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy. "We are committed to restarting the nation's nuclear industry and advancing the next generation of these technologies, helping to create new jobs and export opportunities for American workers and businesses."

Now, the U.S. Department of Energy, SRS, and Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) have locked in three separate agreements with private companies SMR, LLC, which is a subsidiary of Holtec International; Hyperion Power Generation Inc., and NuScale Power, LLC for nuclear energy.

The partnerships will help deploy SMR technologies at SRS facilities near Aiken, South Carolina. The project aims to support private sector testing, development and licensing of SMR technologies.

"We have a unique combination of nuclear knowledge and laboratory expertise, infrastructure, location and much more to make the Site a natural fit for advancing the small modular reactor technology," said Dr. Dave Moody, DOE-SR Manager. "We are about reinvigorating SRS assets to impact national needs and influence new missions for the future of the Savannah River Site."

While nuclear power received some bad publicity last year after the earthquake in Japan caused a nuclear meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, which led to U.S. senators demanding that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) repeat a costly inspection of nuclear power, nuclear power is making a comeback. In December 2011, the NRC approved the First Gen. III+ Reactor design, which puts the U.S. only three years behind China as far as nuclear reactors go.

Source: Energy.gov


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
A damn shame...
By DEVGRU on 3/5/2012 12:22:41 PM , Rating: 3
Only three years? In an area that the US should be light-years ahead of compared to anyone else on the planet?

Thanks liberal "environmentalists". As long as it makes you feel good though, right? Reason and logic be damned.

Am I the only one that can't wait for California to fall off into the ocean?




RE: A damn shame...
By MrBlastman on 3/5/2012 12:30:22 PM , Rating: 5
Modular, serviceable nuclear reactors have a great future ahead of them. They have many plusses, including:

1. Below ground power generation--minimal impact should a problem occur.

2. Less power loss over distance due to resistance from large-scale power transmission lines.

3. Spill-over to other areas should their systems become saturated, including the ability to "drop in" additional reactors throughout the area where needed.

4. Lower operational costs (as they are enclosed systems).


RE: A damn shame...
By Omega215D on 3/5/2012 5:29:27 PM , Rating: 2
Actually California is doing much better in regards to getting nuclear plants online. States like NY should be shamed.


RE: A damn shame...
By FITCamaro on 3/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: A damn shame...
By ekv on 3/5/2012 12:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
Umm, guys. We aren't all brain-damaged sluts out here.... Maybe send a life raft? k. ty


RE: A damn shame...
By dgingerich on 3/5/2012 2:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I've been out there a couple times for work. there are a few I'd like to save. Not many, but a few.


RE: A damn shame...
By Sazabi19 on 3/5/2012 3:11:31 PM , Rating: 2
Just find stay close to LA, find a woman, and grab you a handfull or 2 of some fake jubblies, they float.


RE: A damn shame...
By ekv on 3/5/2012 4:24:37 PM , Rating: 2
We was talkin' about, umm, sustained nuclear reactions, just the other day ... and don't you dare call her jubblies fake.


RE: A damn shame...
By darkpuppet on 3/5/12, Rating: -1
RE: A damn shame...
By Spuke on 3/6/2012 12:21:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
California would just be a good start in ridding the world of the disease of liberalism.
We're not all liberals.


RE: A damn shame...
By sigmatau on 3/5/12, Rating: -1
RE: A damn shame...
By ekv on 3/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: A damn shame...
By xenol on 3/5/2012 12:53:18 PM , Rating: 3
Funny you say that, considering I'm within 50 miles of a Gen-II power plant, in Southern California.

I don't think it's just the "liberal hippies" (not quoting you), but the misinformed public. I'm willing to bet that the average joe sees nuclear power as high-risk and will receive ample doses of radiation that no man should ever get (without realizing that background radiation from nuclear power plants is so strict, you probably get more going overseas in an airplane than you do in a year next to a plant). The fact is that the technology today makes nuclear reactors orders of magnitude times safer. And Gen IV reactors are practically meltdown proof.

Someone should invest some time into making a positive PR campaign. But I guess nuclear power has such negative PR, that would make you look like an insane man.


RE: A damn shame...
By FITCamaro on 3/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: A damn shame...
By Etsp on 3/5/2012 2:39:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
you probably get more going overseas in an airplane than you do in a year next to a plant).

By orders of magnitude, yes.
http://xkcd.com/radiation/
Of course, I would love to see expected yearly levels for people living within 5 miles and 10 miles of a reactor as well. Anyone have those numbers?


RE: A damn shame...
By Omega215D on 3/5/2012 5:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
I think US zoning laws prevent something like that to happen. I'm not sure if there are any residential areas in a close proximity to Indian Point in NY.


RE: A damn shame...
By dlmartin53 on 3/6/2012 9:21:51 AM , Rating: 2
I worked on the Indian Point project, lots of residences in the area.


RE: A damn shame...
By Mint on 3/7/2012 1:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
Thankfully the hippies are slowly turning around and realizing Greenpeace's anti-nuclear stance was by far the biggest preventable CO2 contributor in the last 50 years (not that I particularly care about CO2, but I do care about pollution, strip mining, unregulated fracking, etc).

When the cofounder of Greenpeace turns his back on them for shunning nuclear, you know they fucked up bigtime. It's also nice to see Obama supporting nuclear when the common perception is that democrat voters are anti-nuclear. Seems like it was just a vocal minority that's shrinking by the day.

It pisses me off that we lost decades of progress when the nuclear industry stagnated, but it's never to late to start investing in it again.


RE: A damn shame...
By retrospooty on 3/5/2012 1:00:37 PM , Rating: 3
"Am I the only one that can't wait for California to fall off into the ocean?"

WTF does CA have to do with this? And how would losing the single largest contributor to the US economy be a good thing for the rest of the US? Damn, by itself CA would be the 7th richest country in the world if it were on its own.


RE: A damn shame...
By Ringold on 3/5/2012 3:55:59 PM , Rating: 2
To put a level-headed response to it, I'd just point out that California and some of the groups that call it home hold back the country in various ways. Even though a few that call themselves liberal are keen on nuclear power, the industry is almost surely at a dead end so long as Green Peace can call down legions of followers to try to block, with protests and lawsuits, any new nuclear development. It's why the vast majority of planned new reactors are at existing sites.

And its not just that. California is inherently anti-development; it manages despite itself. There was a recent story on the battle to expand the port at Long Beach; the port knows its about to be boned hard by the Panama Canal expansion if it doesn't expand and streamline its operation by bringing rail services closer, otherwise cargo ships will bypass it entirely for goods destined for the middle and eastern parts of the country. They support tens of thousands of local jobs. Yet environmentalist groups are battling it at every turn, claiming the new train terminal will move pollution for the existing place to a new place where people, of course, live near by. They want the rail line to go straight to the port, but the port points out there's not enough room. It's insane, and just one of countless examples of how Californians seem to hate their own prosperity and try their hardest to destroy it.


RE: A damn shame...
By retrospooty on 3/5/2012 5:09:33 PM , Rating: 1
Im going to go out on a very short limb and guess that you have never been there, outside of maybe a short vacation, because you are totally clueless about the state. Environmentalists battle progress in most states, not just CA.

CA is just like most other states, it's corrupt politicians have made a financial mess (note, I said politicians, not dems, not reps, not libs not cons). The difference of CA vs other states, it has alot more money, more industry, more GDP and adds more tax revenue to the US treasury than any other state by a vary large margin. You all should STFU and thank CA for paying the bills, rather than badmouthing it.


RE: A damn shame...
By Ringold on 3/5/2012 10:38:06 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Environmentalists battle progress in most states, not just CA.


It's a whole other degree of fanaticism and turn-out in CA, however. I also have spent a decent bit of time in LA, and IMO if the Russians accidentally nuked it, the world would be better off.

quote:
You all should STFU and thank CA for paying the bills, rather than badmouthing it.


It's also the butt of jokes from not just across the country, but around the world. Don't even try to equate it's politicians with those of other states, the majority of whom manage to not be perennially looked at by ratings agencies wondering how much longer the can could be kicked down the road before the system collapses. It's also the only state I'm aware of in the union that legitimately needs profound constitutional reform. It's also near the bottom in many surveys of ease of business; some sectors bring to mind the Indian License Raj of decades past. The fact CA compares poorly is that, despite having a nice climate, native born American's are net emigrating, unlike Texas, Florida and other comfy states. It's resting on the laurels of its past success, and I hear politicians of both stripes admit to it from CA, so your blanket defense of one of America's most dysfunctional states just sounds moody and, besides, is unsupported by available information.


RE: A damn shame...
By Mint on 3/6/12, Rating: 0
RE: A damn shame...
By retrospooty on 3/6/2012 6:57:00 AM , Rating: 4
"maybe ingrates like you would finally realize how much the conservative states are ironically leeching off the productivity and taxes of the liberal states."

Bingo. I am not really liberal, certainly not fiscally liberal, but I share a lot of social liberal views. Anyhow, this is one thing that drives me nuts is the hipocracy of alot of vocal conservatives. You can see it even on this tech site. They tend to draw an "us vs. them" line in everything and separate themselves, then make hypocritical attacks and blame everything on the other side as if their side wasn't right there the whole time with not just equal, but the majority of political power.


RE: A damn shame...
By Ringold on 3/6/2012 4:38:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you f***ing stupid? You think the US would be better off if someone nuked California?


I was kidding, smartass.

quote:
then it's time to split the country in two.


The social right tried to part ways with the social left in the 1860s. A million casualties combined testifies to how much one side didn't want to let go.

quote:
how much the conservative states are ironically leeching off the productivity and taxes of the liberal states.


http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.htm...

Hard to draw concrete conclusions from that. Virginia looks to get a good deal, but it helps being close to the seat of federal government. New Mexico basically exists as the DoD's playground. Mississippi never recovered from the Civil War, that much is true. Red and blue states alike that look to be getting a good deal happen to have sizeable federal activities and smaller populations. Very populous Texas, Florida, and California, with more taxpayers, seem to be offsetting it. If I cared, I'd plug the numbers in to something like STATA and see if the relationship between population density and net federal benefits weren't strong. That looks to explain a good bit of the variation; plus that data is old. Republican states have relatively outperformed the Democrat ones since that survey in 2005, with Michigan becoming a total basket case. It's pretty tough to make a solid case using that data and, if you asked a southerner about it, would probably gladly tell you to keep that money and stick it.

Not that any of that has to do with the original point; California being a mess. You can't deny that, so deflect on to other points.

quote:
You could also implement all the austerity measures you want to fuck up your economy how you please.


None of which would be necessary if not for spending sprees. What's the left got against fiscal rectitude and sustainable budgets? I give props to Portugal, I was reading over the weekend Portugese understand their wreckless ways got them where they are, not outside bogeymen. If only you were half as honest with yourself.


RE: A damn shame...
By Mint on 3/7/2012 11:34:54 AM , Rating: 2
I am all for sustainable budgets. However, I would do it by ending the Bush tax cuts, ending the plethora of tax loopholes for corporations and the wealthy (e.g. Romney paying a 14% tax rate), and cutting defense spending.

I wouldn't do it by cutting SS/welfare/medicare like the Paul Ryan plan, or whatever magical plan the other Republican candidates are pretending they have to balance the budget without crapping on the poor.

I've seen it work in Canada in the 1990's. We had a massive deficit. The conservative government was voted out, taxes were raised, military spending was kept under control, and eventually the budget got balanced and even went into surplus. When the latter happened, the party on the left wanted more spending, while the party on the right wanted tax cuts again, but the centrist party kept moving forward with cutting the debt. They eventually got voted out over a pathetically small scandal ($100M of wasteful spending over 6 years out of a $200B/yr budget), the conservatives got back into power to reduce taxes, and now they're back in a monsterous deficit. Canada would have been almost as bad as Greece if tax cuts kept happening in the 15 years that the centrist party was in power.


RE: A damn shame...
By Mint on 3/7/2012 12:52:17 PM , Rating: 2
Now for your other points:

For you to compare the 1860 to today is ludicrous, especially ignoring that the civil war was about ending slavery. The only reason the blue states tolerate giving so much to the red states is convenience and empathy. If you're going to be ingrates about it, those reasons lose validity.

You can't just make up excuses and fabricate data for the more recent years based on your cherry picking. IMO it's pretty clear why taxfoundation.org hasn't done a new study which simply amounts to getting updated data: Their fundings sources don't want this truth exposed anymore. It's even worse when you go to the district level. Cities overwhelmingly vote democratic, even when the GOP wins big:
http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/...
Where do you think most of the government's tax revenue comes from?

There is a huge redistribution from democrat regions to republican regions. If the latter are going to be so ingrateful, then I say let's show them what less socialism tastes like. Let's see how lower taxes works out for them when they aren't leeching off of the liberals.


RE: A damn shame...
By MGSsancho on 3/5/2012 5:19:58 PM , Rating: 3
Port of LA has little room to grow unless they want to do what is being done in Norway and dredge up silt and pour it on a sand bar to make a new port. Expanding the panama canal will make things interesting yes but the port of LA is still huge because Americans consume lots of imported items. Tens of thousands of jobs? Sorry I do not have sympathy for an industry to tries to manage thousands of containers with a paper clip board and has refused to use any electronic aids beyond that of two-way-radio. The port is very inefficient. When I used to import car parts from Jakarta and Indonesia it would take a week up to a month (I am including government inspections which honestly is not the port's fault) to get a container from the port (already off the ship) to on a trailer and hit the freeway. You can not bandwagon all of California with its 35 million or so inhabitants from a union stagnated port.

It would also be unfair to call California anti-development when you have silicon valley, various military facilities that produce stealth aircraft and missiles, Tech behind radio and film (notice I said tech not politics), state with the highest regulations on environment in the US (both good and bad but strictest for sure), and Apple. I put apple outside of silicon valley some there are Dailytech readers who believes Apple creates magic and not products. If you were to imply California is anti-development because of the slow pace of politics? Blame prop 13 which required a super majority (66%) of state senate/house votes to get anything done, sure that would be a fair attack.

Your comment about the high-speed rail line is light rail and thus will not ship cargo http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/trip_planner.asp... so I do not know what you are referring to. heavy rail or cargo trains? Already exist http://www.portoflosangeles.org/facilities/rail_in...

There was an old quote I remembered about a former director of Sandia National labs i can not find but remember the gist, 'There are two types of people, those that are uneducated about nuclear power and need to be educated and those who will hate it not matter what. we must ignore the ignorant and focus on the uninformed.' In looking for this quote I found this gem, http://www.sandia.gov/~sjplimp/quotes.html


RE: A damn shame...
By Omega215D on 3/5/2012 5:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
Having lived in NYC for my whole life and making my way to San Diego I feel that NY is no longer progressing in comparison.

Also, San Diego eradicated some of it's deficit! (they are also on a slight hiring spree).


RE: A damn shame...
By Ringold on 3/5/2012 10:46:16 PM , Rating: 2
The issue with the port of LA isn't expansion; they want to make the cargo they already process, process quicker, and get to rails. LA and Long Beach aren't trying to expand their business, they're trying to make a value propisition so that shippers don't take up to half their business and send it to Miami and other Gulf ports (many of which are quickly dredging and preparing to expand, since they figure it a forgone conclusion that CA will not miss an opportunity to screw themselves).

As for anti-development, it's interesting to me that tech flourishes in the state the way it does India. I'd propose it's because, as in India, it's the one industry government doesn't totally strangle. As for the military jobs and contractors, how long will that last in a state that hates their existence? Google for news stories regarding it, there's several instances a year of universities and whatnot trying to kick ROTC programs out.

As to the rail comment, they exist, but to get from the port to the cargo rail, some containers get loaded on trucks for short trips by highway. The port wants to completely eliminate that.

I don't doubt that longshoreman unions are holding back the efficiency, but they're in a battle for their livelihoods and environmentalists trying to block improvements aren't helping. As I said, the Port of Miami and several others are standing by to take their business.


RE: A damn shame...
By JediJeb on 3/6/2012 10:09:54 AM , Rating: 2
Didn't they (California) also just recently try to pass legislation to not only stop new nuclear plants from being built but also to shut down the current ones?


RE: A damn shame...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/5/2012 5:20:05 PM , Rating: 1
California is bankrupt, how in the hell can they be the 7'th "richest" country in the world? California is $19+ billion in the hole, in other words, massive deficits.


RE: A damn shame...
RE: A damn shame...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/5/2012 5:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
I know what GDP is, thank you. I know what he's trying to say, however, it's simply not correct to claim they are rich and prosperous when they are so massively in debt.

It's like saying the United States has such a huge GDP, we must be rich!! Well, technically, nope. Wish we were, not the case.


RE: A damn shame...
By JediJeb on 3/6/2012 1:20:46 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. It is like saying that because I make $45k per year I put $45k in the bank. Once you take out expenses I barely break even. which is really good if you compare me to most states and the federal budgets, it would be like me making $45k per year and having $50k in expenses each year and asking you for money so I can pay my debt to you.


RE: A damn shame...
By retrospooty on 3/5/2012 5:30:58 PM , Rating: 2
You cant be that dense reclaimer. Its mismanaged by their politicians the same as most states, and the Fed. The US is over 1 trillion in the hole every year. How are we the richest nation?

A budget deficit does not mean they arent paying more taxes than any other state, or support more businesses and more revenue and pay more to the federal govt than any other state. Check Sancho's link and repeat after me. Thank you CA for contributing more than anyone else to our national economy.


RE: A damn shame...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/5/2012 6:04:36 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not dense. I know what you were trying to say, you just stated it poorly. You lost your way when you tried to equate California with richness.

quote:
Thank you CA for contributing more than anyone else to our national economy.


Depends! How much are they taking out of our economy in return?

I would like to quantify that by comparing how much Federal money California "secures" for various things like education grants, prison grants, transportation etc etc. I'm sure if we dug deep enough we would find an alarming disparity there.

Since 2008 California has been screaming for a Federal Bailout, remember? You cannot pretend that all that debt is inconsequential to the rest of the country. Recently California got $18 billion to bailout their mortgage crisis! The other 49 States combined were given $7 billion. You were saying something about California contributing more?

Not sure what you're trying to pull here, but frankly, it really stinks Retro. California is no more of a blessing than any other state, and quite frankly, more of a curse on this nation at times.


RE: A damn shame...
By retrospooty on 3/5/2012 6:27:30 PM , Rating: 3
Budget deficit or not 4 at least the past 50 years f not longer california has made more money more revenue and pay more taxes to the federal government then any other state made by a huge margin..... Consistently every single year without exception. That is a matter of fact

I know that doesn't make sense to your conservative values that a liberal state makes so much money and makes so much more than any other states but it's true even though you don't want it to be.


RE: A damn shame...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/5/2012 6:40:26 PM , Rating: 1
But how much Federal spending do they account for? Again, you insist on only looking at one half of the equation. You understand simple math, right?

Also California has the largest population by a fair margin. That has a lot to do with it. Since you wanna be cute, let's take a look at this shall we

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_b...

Hmm looks like per capita California isn't doing so well!

I think this argument is entirely silly and has no bearing on anything, mind you. But when backed into a corner, I come out swinging like a champ. Time to admit this awesome advantage you give California comes down to nothing but a simple matter of total population.


RE: A damn shame...
By retrospooty on 3/5/2012 8:45:54 PM , Rating: 2
Tax revenue is but a piece. Its all about the business and GDP... Obviously it puts people to work and that gets it all moving. But... You are right, its not really relevant. I was just posting against all these "CA should just fall into the ocean" losers. CA pays more than its share and always has. There are 35 million people there from all walks of life. Its not a freegin hippie commune FFS, its a HUGE economy and the USA would be screwed without it.


RE: A damn shame...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: A damn shame...
By retrospooty on 3/6/2012 6:43:19 AM , Rating: 3
I know they don't mean that literally, its still said in a way, like "I wish all those freaks weren't part of our country". Those "freaks" they put in a pigeon hole are just normal people like the rest of the country. They work every day just like the rest of us and contribute the same.


RE: A damn shame...
By mkrech on 3/6/2012 11:54:11 AM , Rating: 2
...and spend beyond their means with the expectation that the rest of the country will bail them out.


RE: A damn shame...
By retrospooty on 3/6/2012 12:20:13 PM , Rating: 2
the fact that the politicians in charge overspent isnt exactly a surprise. It has been happening on a federal level since Reagens reign. Alot of states have the same issue, they are just smaller. CA isnt any different.

I live in AZ, one of the reddest of red states with extremely conservative politicians... and per capita, our deficit is worse than CA's.


RE: A damn shame...
By DEVGRU on 3/6/12, Rating: 0
RE: A damn shame...
By retrospooty on 3/6/2012 12:23:15 PM , Rating: 2
spoken by another uneducated person that has never been there and knows zero about its population outside of what right-wing radio tells you.

So kill off 36 million normal hard working people because of the actions a few high profile nutjobs? Your starting to sound alot like Hitler.

That's a huge chuck of the US poulation and the highet earning chunk at that. Who is going to pay your welfare bills when you lose all that money? Dont bite the hand that feeds you, you thank it.


RE: A damn shame...
By DEVGRU on 3/6/2012 12:51:55 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, been there, done that, have the T-shirt.

There are VAST ideological differences in this country. There is another civil war on the horizon.

There are those that are productive members of society, and there is the rich vocal minority that seeks to impose their will on the rest of the country.

There are those that prescribe to reason and logic and those that think 'if it feels good' thats all that matters.

All I know is California is the largest cesspool of scum and villany in the country. Any time the wealthy can use the courts to overturn the will of the people (i.e. Prop 8) thats when no words or arguments will change anything and the only recourse is violence.


RE: A damn shame...
By retrospooty on 3/6/2012 1:36:57 PM , Rating: 2
"All I know is California is the largest cesspool of scum and villany in the country"

There you have it, you know zero about CA. Enjoy the civil war in your head, because that is where it exists


RE: A damn shame...
By DEVGRU on 3/6/2012 2:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There you have it, you know zero about CA. Enjoy the civil war in your head, because that is where it exists


Typical liberal. Stick your head in the sand and shout 'lalalala'!

Nice how you ignored the last part of what I wrote, you know: truth? Facts? I like how your brain goes all hay-wire when presented with evidence. You know even less about CA, at least I've been there. Try getting out of your gated community and spend some time in LA proper.

Enjoy the Californian Utopia in your head, because that's the only place it exists.


RE: A damn shame...
By retrospooty on 3/6/2012 2:50:14 PM , Rating: 2
"Typical liberal. Stick your head in the sand and shout 'lalalala'!"

I am not a liberal. Because I can see that you are a moron, doesnt make me liberal, it just means I read the tripe you posted.

"Nice how you ignored the last part of what I wrote, you know: truth? Facts"

How is that relevant? You post 9 or 10 completely uneducated lines about killing off 36 million of the nations highest productive state, call it a cesspool, on and on and make ONE comment about prop 8 and that is supposed to lend creedence to your blind idiocy? LOL. I couldnt care less about prop 8. We are talking about the whole state and your idiotic comments about killing of 36 million people - and a Civil war you think is coming.

Guess what, CA has more republicans than any other state , with a possible exception of Texas. What about all those people? Dead too, because they live in a state that your ignorant redneck beliefs have misidentified? Your freegin hilarious, you make Reclaimer look fair and balanced.


RE: A damn shame...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/6/12, Rating: -1
RE: A damn shame...
By retrospooty on 3/7/2012 7:07:56 AM , Rating: 2
LOL.

Hey, no offence meant. I respect your opinion, and your anger. I like your sense of humor and I enjoy our occasional debates. I think you are a good guy, but I would certainly NOT call you fair and balanced. ;)


RE: A damn shame...
By FITCamaro on 3/6/2012 9:58:23 AM , Rating: 2
And what you don't want to admit is that while liberal states might provide a lot of revenue they also take a lot more. In every liberal state there is a lot of millionaires just because of the industries that have been there for decades. If not centuries. Long before our current situation existed. What liberal states also have is a lot of self entitled poor who demand everything under the sun for free.

Quite a number of companies are fleeing high tax states in favor of lower tax states.


RE: A damn shame...
By retrospooty on 3/6/2012 12:33:37 PM , Rating: 2
You know nothing, its hard to even comment, but nothing you said is remotely real. Red states have the same welfare problem as blue ones, and business in CA is fine, the housing market killed the state, like it did to alot of states. Not at all a CA issue.


RE: A damn shame...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/6/2012 11:43:03 PM , Rating: 1
Nobody knows anything but Retro. I love how you say we're wrong without providing proof of anything.

quote:
Red states have the same welfare problem as blue ones


Entitlement spending and programs vary from state to state. This is simply a completely inaccurate and unsubstantiated statement on your part.

quote:
and business in CA is fine


You're joking right? California ranks DEAD LAST of all States for businesses according to 500+ CEO's. California's business decline is such an absolutely fact, how dare you even tell an outright lie to make a point.

http://chiefexecutive.net/best-worst-states-for-bu...

California has been for some time the site of the largest business exodus in the country. Now at a mind boggling rate of 4.7 businesses packing up and leaving the state every week. Not bankruptcies, mind you, but relocations! And you say "business in CA is fine"? If you think that's fine, do yourself a favor, don't run a business.

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/04/14/ca-business-...

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/01/0...

quote:
the housing market killed the state


Another lie. California was bankrupt WELL before 2007/2008. What is your deal?

Seriously I get that you feel you somehow have to defend California, for whatever reason, as a fellow American. But simply outright lying about incontrovertible facts to paint some idealist rosy picture is just deplorable. Telling people "they know nothing", while you yourself apparently holds nothing grounded in actual facts that you can prove, isn't a winning position.


RE: A damn shame...
By JediJeb on 3/6/2012 1:33:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
state makes so much money and makes so much more than any other states but it's true even though you don't want it to be.


Simply making more money does not equal more wealth. Here in Kentucky I make around $45k per year, how well off would I be if I made that much and lived in California? I bought a house and 3 acres of land for $42k, how much could I buy in California for that much money? Gasoline here just hit $3.65, how much does it cost in California? If you spend $500k for a house in Kentucky you practically bought yourself a mansion, what do you buy in California for that? What is a good reason that property and houses in California should cost more than any other state, it is all made from the same materials and those materials should cost the same nation wide. If something runs the prices of things up, then that should be considered a problem not an asset.

As has been said, you can not simply say California pays more in federal taxes and make that the basis for it supporting the whole nation. If California paid the most taxes and also had the least expenditures and least amount drawn out of the federal budget then that would be something to boast about.


RE: A damn shame...
By TSS on 3/6/2012 8:50:32 AM , Rating: 2
I've covered this before but i'll repeat it here. I've looked this up during the time where it was looking like italy would be the next greece, because california and italy are roughly the same size in economy (when i checked, ~$2 trillion GDP for california, ~$2.1 trillion GDP for italy, making california 9th in the world)

California itself is FAR from being bankrupt. It actually has a very low state debt, which is $750 billion for the *biggest* estimate with the most stuff included. i thought $177 billion was the official figure at the time.

Compare that with the italian's $2,6 trillion state debt and $86 billion deficit, it put things quite in perspective. Even amongst the 51 US states, california isn't doing the worst by far. It's sort of in the middle when it comes to deficits.

What IS the problem though, is your federal debt, something the italians do not have ontop of state debt. Currently at $15,5 trillion, there's 2 ways of measuring california's share: by population or GDP.

Population wise, California has 12% of the entire nation's population. GDP wise, it makes up for 13% of US GDP.

So californians owe another $1,87 trillion in federal debt by population, or another $2,015 trillion in federal debt by GDP. And that's no estimation. That's fact. So much fact, that in fact californians paid $55-$59 billion dollars in FY 2011 just to sustain that fact.

That comes ontop of a maximum of $750 billion in state debt, and possibly another $250 billion in local debt.

There's your problem.

The ironic thing is, go to USdebtclock.org, and look for all of the state's debts and deficits. You'll see that just about every single state in america has a very healthy debt situation - most are around 20% GDP, even though they are all running deficits right now.

Somehow, you americans manage to be fiscally sound at the state level, but engage in a massive spending orgy when all the states are put together. I've often thought if there ever was a comic character describing america as a whole, it would be two-face without a doubt.

Just like spouting nonsense just to prove your own point without actually looking anything up, even if the resulting information would be benificial. Eh, reclaimer?


RE: A damn shame...
By JediJeb on 3/6/2012 2:02:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Somehow, you americans manage to be fiscally sound at the state level, but engage in a massive spending orgy when all the states are put together. I've often thought if there ever was a comic character describing america as a whole, it would be two-face without a doubt.


I think this really defines the difference in the US between the fiscally conservative and the fiscally liberal camps. The conservative side thinks that the federal government should be smaller and therefore be spending a lot less money while the liberal side thinks the federal government should be larger which requires more spending.

My question is, other than funding the national defense, what other programs are more well provided for at the national level than could be provided for at the state level if the states had use of all the money they are now sending to the federal government minus that required for defense?

Turn national parks into state parks and you can get rid of the Dept of the Interior. Let state Dept of Education control education and you can get rid of the national Dept of Education.

Transportation, Energy, Defense, and a few others are actually shared across state lines and therefore should fall under the Federal government. But many many other things could be handled by state and local governments more efficiently. One of the biggest jokes of a department I believe is the Department of Homeland Security, those duties should be handled through cooperation between FBI, CIA and the military not a separate department which has become too powerful already and honestly Bush should have never let it begin. Same with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ( or whatever they have renamed it to now), what do those three have to do with one another, put the first two under the FDA and the firearms under the FBI and be done with it. We could probably cut most of our deficit spending already if we just got rid of the redundant agencies that handle either the exact same things or things so similar that they should be considered the same. Have fewer government workers and make them work as hard as most private sector workers do with their continued employment based on performance just like the private sector jobs are and we can really cut back on expenses at the Federal level.


RE: A damn shame...
By Spuke on 3/6/2012 4:04:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Have fewer government workers and make them work as hard as most private sector workers do with their continued employment based on performance just like the private sector jobs are and we can really cut back on expenses at the Federal level.
Fed employment IS based on performance AND it's not anywhere near as difficult to get fired as a state employment. It's not anymore secure than a private sector job IMO. Security depends on who and where you're working just like the private sector. That said, the part of the fed workforce that IS difficult to fire are the few remaining union members and veterans (war vets only not just prior military).


RE: A damn shame...
By Ringold on 3/6/2012 4:46:16 PM , Rating: 2
It's worth pointing out that many states have constitutional requirements for balanced budgets. Deficits have to either be creatively accounted for or drawn against rainy-day funds built up in sunnier times. That is actually a nearly perfect implementation of Keynesian economics, not the mangled version that actually gets used in politics.


RE: A damn shame...
By retrospooty on 3/6/2012 5:24:09 PM , Rating: 2
"I think this really defines the difference in the US between the fiscally conservative and the fiscally liberal camps. The conservative side thinks that the federal government should be smaller and therefore be spending a lot less money while the liberal side thinks the federal government should be larger which requires more spending."

And that is the horrible flaw with fiscal liberals. It just costs too much money. The larger the organization, the less efficient it is and the US govt. is about as large as exists on earth. Nothing they do is efficient, not for bad effort or bad intention, its just too big and needs to shrink.


RE: A damn shame...
By Mint on 3/7/2012 1:17:01 PM , Rating: 2
Aside from defense spending, efficiency is a completely overblown problem.

The vast majority of federal spending is in transfers, which is 99%+ efficient. Unemployment, SS, and welfare go straight to recipients. Medicare involves fee payments to the private sector that are lower than they get from those with health insurance.

You could cut the federal payroll in half and you still would only cut 3% of the budget.


Fast Neutron Breeder Reactors
By stardude692001 on 3/5/2012 3:57:08 PM , Rating: 3
Little to no long lived nuclear waste.
Makes fuel out of waste.
We have a stockpile of already mined depleted uranium that could power the US for 2500 years.

Why no research love for the future of fission?




RE: Fast Neutron Breeder Reactors
By Omega215D on 3/5/2012 5:26:07 PM , Rating: 4
The word 'nuclear' scares idiots to death (not just in the US but in Europe and possibly Asia) which it will become impossible to build any new and modern reactor in many places. In NY the morons were successful in pressuring the government to look into demolishing the Indian Point plant.

*groups like FEMEN and people like Casey Stoner are creating fuss against nuclear energy.


RE: Fast Neutron Breeder Reactors
By stardude692001 on 3/5/2012 9:31:18 PM , Rating: 1
It would be nice if that was Literally true, then I could just go around shouting nuclear and raising the average IQ of the world.

The Irony is that their crusade puts us in danger because we are stuck with old shitty reactors that we need for power but are a lot less safe than once we could build today.

Even so the only power generating breeder reactor is the Superphenix no wait they shut that down too, dammit. Even 98% nuclear France won't do it. Is liquid sodium that scary?


RE: Fast Neutron Breeder Reactors
By TSS on 3/6/2012 9:04:13 AM , Rating: 2
Actually it's the majority of the people that are stupid. Well intentioned, but stupid. The ones that are not are usually the ones running those organizations, and that's where the problems lie.

They aren't upset about nuclear being dangerous. They are upset that they don't get to tell others what to do and instead have to listen to "elected" officials.

So they crusade against those officials for as much power as they themselves can obtain. Which has been for the longest time enough to almost completly halt nuclear progress.

Don't think for a second all those organizations will simply vanish if we did globally ban all forms of nuclear use. They'll move on to the next topic, and the next topic, untill finally they are the ones in charge of the oligarchy.

This goes for PETA, Greenpeace, the vast majority of all enviromental organizations, but also lobby groups for the other side of the coin, corperate interests and the like. All creating as much as a stir for as much of a slice of the power-pie. There are still a few doing good, yes. Most of which because they are small initiatives. But the larger it gets the more power it gets the more corrupted it gets.

What the government should do is simply blatently ignore those wanting to grab power, and listen to those who actually mean well. But i feel the US government has kind of fallen down the power-grab-corruption hole themselves.


Are they looking at LFTR?
By MZperX on 3/5/2012 12:48:42 PM , Rating: 3
I guess a small modular reactor could be of any number of types but somehow I suspect they mean the conventional Uranium 235 cycle. We need to be looking at Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR). If the US converted our electrical energy production (or at least a significant portion of it) to LFTR we could be well on our way to energy independence without the cost/risks associated with Uranium. Comparatively, Thorium is far more plentiful and would not be attractive as a weapon (non-proliferation). It is also a highly scalable and safer technology. Another great thing about LFTR is that is is very promising for deep space exploration applications as well.

I realize that generating copious amounts of elecriticy would not completely end the need for oil, but it could go a long way to reduce our dependence. Assuming a near term breakthrough in battery technology (due to nano-scale engineering or whatever) we'd have a winning formula even for transportation applications. Everything that already can/does run on electricity is a given.

While any step forward is welcome, this seems like a token measure at best. It's frustrating to see that the US had practically thrown away opportunities to advance in the nuclear power field for decades.




RE: Are they looking at LFTR?
By mjv.theory on 3/5/2012 2:24:29 PM , Rating: 2
China is developing LTFR - all three of these are U235 based, so read that as "old-fashioned" and "expensive". A successful completion of this project should put the U.S a good 20years behind China and well on the way to economic collapse.

Wishful thinking and stupidity, a tried and tested route to competitive advantage.....not.


RE: Are they looking at LFTR?
By Ringold on 3/5/2012 3:45:56 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, while we may be just 3 years behind in this respect, China has simultaneously been advancing rapidly on all nuclear fronts.


RE: Are they looking at LFTR?
By JediJeb on 3/5/2012 4:01:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Another great thing about LFTR is that is is very promising for deep space exploration applications as well.


This was even mentioned in a very old SciFi book "Rip Foster Rides the Gray Planet"

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20147

Free version if anyone is interested. This is one book that stays fairly realistic when it comes to space travel and such, but in it they use a Thorium reactor that heats zinc which is used for the actual thrust of the rockets, quite well thought out for the time when it was written.


Hijacked much?
By danjw1 on 3/5/2012 5:02:49 PM , Rating: 2
The many of the comments here are pretty ridiculous.

Beyond that, we need to be looking at everything when it comes to energy policy. I am all in for different options. Even older nuclear plants put less radiation in the air then coal plants do.

People need to get over the fear of nuclear, its got to be on the table. The problem in Japan was a result of the tidal wave, not the earthquake. When was the last time a tidal wave hit the contiguous United States?

SMR reactors can allow for much lower costs for nuclear energy, by allowing components to be mass produced. I believe we should be exploring all the technologies that people have mentioned. We need an all in solution for both economic and national security reasons. Which is exactly what President Obama has been saying, so what is the beef with the liberals?




"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki