FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed

Page 9 of 10  


It depends. In the case of the SR111 insulation blankets - yes, as was mentioned in a previous posting.
In the case of other changes, each change is evaluated against the remaining life of the aircraft and the proibability of occurance. If it makes sense and can be done in an economical manner - and yes, it is a trade, then the changes will be ordered.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

My version of "similarity" for purposes of this discussion is "big plane, falls from sky, no survivors".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 3 May 2009 12:23:22 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"

Care to cite that? Let's separate out commercial airline travel vs General Aviation (GA fatality rates per passenger mile are closer to, and possibly higher, than auto travel, but that's not what most people worry about when they're deciding how to make a given trip, just like most of us advocating safe industrial nuclear power plants aren't advocating personal "Mr. Fission" machines). From:
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm
The "Survival rate of passengers on aircraft involved in fatal accidents carrying 10+ passengers" is ~25-35%. Not zero. Besides the Hudson ditching, several recent accidents had all (or almost all) survive.
The point is that on a 500 mile trip to Grandma's house, you're significantly more likely to have an 18-wheeler plow into you head-on (for which the survival rate is *really* close to 0) than to have your airliner "drop out of the sky". One airliner crash makes the worldwide news, but 1000 fatal car crashes don't.
As others have said, you're clouding facts with emotion, which is clearly what you're doing on the nuclear power issue also...
Josh
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Important to note here is the above 25-35% survival rate is for accidents that have AT LEAST ONE FATALITY. So, obviously, when you include accidents that have NO fatalities, the survival rate for all accidents is going to be substantially higher. There are plenty of accidents where an aircraft has an accident, like landing long and going off the end of runway, where everyone walks away.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Right. Now, compare that to incidents where the plane falls out of the sky, like Swiss Air 111.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

No emotion here at all. I'm referring to flights like this one, which are not unusual:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3105_aircrash.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aircrash/dissection.html
While you're at the second linked page, scroll down to "Taking action - and not", and look at the picture to the right of that paragraph.
"To investigators' surprise, the aircraft's thermal insulation blankets, which had passed an FAA test for fire safety, readily ignited in a test conducted during the crash investigation.
Tell me how the material passed the FAA's fire safety test once, but failed later. Give me all the reasons you can imagine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Emotion, no, of course not. LOL. You just substitute relying on a couple of the most horrifying and tragic aircrashes instead of looking at statistics that cover ALL or at least a reasonable number of aircraft accidents. And then you make the outrageous claim that the chance of surviving an aircraft accident is close to zero. The other poster just showed you statistics that show the actual rate is more like 30% for ACCIDENTS THAT INCLUDE AT LEAST ONE FATALITY. Meaning the survival rate for all aircraft accidents is obviously way higher than that, because there are plenty of them where there are NO fatalities.
So. OK, you're not emotional, just stupid. Feel better?

Which all has zippo to do with what the historical statistical chances are of surviving an aircraft accident, which you claimed is close to zero. You really should just stop embarrassing yourself. You have such an incredible capacity to not even try to understand the basics of how to analyze anything objectively, analytically, or scientifically, that all you have are unfounded opinions and beliefs. Feel free to spout those all you want, but don't try to pass them off as in any way grounded in reality. You think after claiming that the chance of surviving an aircraft accident is close to zero that anyone here is going to believe what you have to say about nuclear power plants or anything else?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Absolutely.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On May 3, 11:41pm, snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:

I never heard of any reqt for commercial airliners flying over water to be able to glide without any power to land. They definitely were required to have 3 or more engines, until the 1990's. When the 757 and 767 entered service it became extremely desirable for economic reasons for these two engine jets to be certified to fly over water. After reviewing decades of actual data on engine reliability, the FAA certified these planes for 2 engine operation.
Joe would probably see that as a deeply sinister move, some kind of collusion between industry and regulators. Most folks that looked at the facts instead of relying on emotion, would see it as a very reasonable decision that is saving us a lot of money on airline tickets. Same thing with going to a 2 man cockpit. And history has proven the soundness of the decision. There hasn't been a single crash that I've ever heard of attributed to granting either of those certifications.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Fun idea, but "market price" includes too much speculative bullshit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JY wrote;

The gov't isn't the one doing the drilling,it's the one doing the BLOCKING.(Congress) Odd,because the gov't gets revenue from domestic oil production and refining.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you're referring to royalties from leased drilling areas, that's only theoretical so far, although the current admin is trying to fix that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It's not theoretical. The US govt has received billions in payments from oil producers for the rights to drill and produce oil in areas under govt control.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's not theoretical. The US govt has received billions in payments from oil producers for the rights to drill and produce oil in areas under govt control. =========== Has the government received all the royalties it's entitled to? This is a trick question.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Who the hell cares? The obvious point is the govt has received huge amounts of money from leasing oil tracts for drilling. Plus, they get huge amounts of other taxes, income tax being one, from oil that is produced here. That was the point Jim was making.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ...

That depends largely on whose definition of "entitled" one might choose.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Gilmer wrote: ...

The oil market isn't totally free market since OPEC is an avowed open cartel. They don't have total control but certainly influence world supply (and hence price) significantly from what it would be if it weren't in existence as a coordinated force.
Much, if not all, of the the drastic reduction in oil prices was owing to the overall economic downturn initiated by other economic factors far more than oil prices. There was a minor cut in US gasoline consumption at the peak before the debacle hit, but it was quite small (2% kind of numbers), hardly cause for complete runback. And, of course, the high price was driven in large part by speculation of continued economic growth and futures trading on that speculation rather than on actual production shortages. IOW, the bubble would have burst on its own anyway.

Which government of which do you speaketh? The US government has no production. Venezuela and Mexico, otoh, is all nationalized.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Maybe at the margins. But this last up and downswing has shown that they don't have all that much impact in real life. You can't fight the laws of supply and demand. Especially when there are many outside the cartel and those inside of it aren't all the disciplined.

Pretty much my point. (grin).
--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.