• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Government Spending??

Leew

New member
I started another thread earlier in the week that has created some really interesting discussion. I am going to try again. As before this came to me in an email. I don’t know who the author is. It is a story so don’t check and criticize the numbers as they have no pretence to real life. I think the story is about how once a program gets put in place in our government it grows beyond all proportion and we eventually forget why the program was started in the first place. Anyway, read it and lets hear what you think.


Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night."
So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.

Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So They created two positions: a time keeper and a payroll officer, then hired two people.

Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an
Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one Year and we are $918,000 over budget, we must cutback." So they laid off the night watchman.

NOW slowly, let it sink in.

Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter.

Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of
the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY..... during the Carter Administration?

Anybody?
Anything?
No?

Didn't think so!

Bottom line. We've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency....the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember!

Ready??
It was very simple..and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate.

The Department of Energy was instituted on 8/04/1977,
TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.

Hey, pretty efficient, huh???

AND NOW IT'S 2010 -- 33 YEARS LATER -- AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS "NECESSARY" DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR. IT HAS 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES; AND LOOK AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE! (THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY, "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?")


33 years ago 30% of our oil consumption was foreign imports. Today 70% of our oil consumption is foreign imports.

Ah, yes -- good old Federal bureaucracy.

NOW, WE HAVE TURNED OVER THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE, AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT?

Hello?
 
They would fix that if they build nuclear reactors. I mean France gets a large portion of their energy, in fact they are more dependent on nuclear energy than any other European country. They seem to be doing fine, their oil usage is much much lower than most European countries and everything seems to be working out for them.

The biggest issue I see with Nuclear power plants, is the ultra fear that people have because of Chernobyl and the possibility of new targets for terrorist. The technology exists, its just trying to get the people to buy off on it. Truth is it is an extremely safe form of energy. I personally wish we could build more reactors and power plants across the country. We need to become more independent.
 
I'd buy that. There has not been a nuclear plant built in the US since Three Mile Island. I think the general fear is unfounded.
 
And reactor design has improved quite a lot. There are now designs that will shut down because of the way they are built, they can't melt, burn or explode, period. They will go into suspended animation if equipment failures occur. This is what is described as "failsafe", meaning the design is planned so that if something drastic happens, things freeze up in the safest possible configuration.

Nuclear energy would be a good idea. If electricity were cheap, more people would want electric cars. As it is, the car batteries don't last all that long and it's too difficult & expensive to charge your car. So you can't drive to work and plug it in for the day. Makes using an electric commuter car not very feasible. Likewise for electric light duty trucks (UPS, FedEx, USPS type). Nuclear energy could change that. If we could use petroleum ONLY in vehicles that can't be electric (like tractor-trailers and airplanes) we could import a whole lot less oil.
 
I agree Betsy. Electric cars are still in the future. We need to develop much better batteries before they can really work.
 
I still don't get why they aren't pushing solar & wind more as well. We just recently had some local big shot kill a wind farm proposal around here because he owns property near where they wanted to put it & he thinks they are ugly. I'm still pretty ticked about that. Especially since the dude owns a company that likes to trumpet how "Green" they are.
 
I still don't get why they aren't pushing solar & wind more as well. We just recently had some local big shot kill a wind farm proposal around here because he owns property near where they wanted to put it & he thinks they are ugly. I'm still pretty ticked about that. Especially since the dude owns a company that likes to trumpet how "Green" they are.

Sad to say, but I remember hearing somewhere that some of those "green" companies, actually dump their stuff in places they shouldn't... Its only hear say though.
 
I still don't get why they aren't pushing solar & wind more as well. We just recently had some local big shot kill a wind farm proposal around here because he owns property near where they wanted to put it & he thinks they are ugly. I'm still pretty ticked about that. Especially since the dude owns a company that likes to trumpet how "Green" they are.

I don't know about your personal situation. Wind and solar power are proving to be marginally profitable at this point. I think they will improve. I know there are a few wind farms in Utah that are doing OK but it requires the right locations with adequate wind.

There must be more to your story. I don't know how a big shot can shut down a project because he doesn't like it. He would have to have more ammunition than that.
 
I am pretty sure the Kennedy's shut down a wind project off the coast of Massachusetts because it would obstruct the view of their compound.
 
I'd buy that. There has not been a nuclear plant built in the US since Three Mile Island. I think the general fear is unfounded.

Vogtle is currently in the process of building a nuclear reactor, and has been for years (there are also a few others). Believe it or not, there are plenty of nuclear power plants going up.. just not nearly as many as France, and it isn't 'general public' knowledge because of the fear factor that the public has of nuclear power.

Nuclear power is MUCH safer now but still has its issues. Especially commercially - one problem is money. Many commercial plants don't have enough money to repair a lot of deficiencies that appear with running a nuclear power plant and they just live with them until they become critical or they shut the plant down. I have a very good friend who is head of maintenance at Turkey Point and she tells me all the time that this is one of the major issues there, which concerns me.
Also, nuclear power plants are not fail safe. There are certain characteristics that rely on personnel training to prevent them from happening, like cold slugging.
The reason why our government (which has 106 operation reactors at this moment in time) has a 100% safety record is because we have (as the original poster has noted) unlimited funds. You guys should see the amount of money that goes across my desk here daily just for reactor maintenance.
If the money that the government spends (on superfluous items, the oil and coal industry and lots of unnecessary research) were re-distributed specifically to nuclear power and they focused their attention on commercial plant maintenance, then I could see it as a feasible thing.

Oh, btw, I work as a nuclear engineer for the navy ;)
 
I am pretty sure the Kennedy's shut down a wind project off the coast of Massachusetts because it would obstruct the view of their compound.
Oh, you're right... I remember that story too.

@ Tara... So are those nuclear "reactors" on ships/subs or on land? I didn't know we had any other nuclear power plants beside the Palo Verde plant in Wintersburg, AZ. Of course, I never claimed to know everything... LOL.
 
Hi Fred! :)

We (the navy) have nuclear reactors on subs, carriers AND on land.

A general list of nuclear reactors (non navy) in the US can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#United_States_of_America


Believe it or not, we actually have quite a few commercial nuclear power plants here in the US. Something a lot of people do not know, is that most isotopes used in the medical field (for medical imaging and cancer treatment) come from reactors here, along with reactors in other countries. These isotopes are something we take for granted, and they are running out. It is the ONLY reason why Chalk River is still running and being repaired... even through corrosion and radiation leaks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk_River_Laboratories
I had to attend a nuclear conference a few months back which focused a lot of attention on the fact that our medical isotopes are running out, because their production relies on specifically old reactors.
 
Thanks Tara! I lived thru the NRU shutdown induced technicium shortage. It did NOT make health professionals happy, we use that isotope daily to image heart blood flow.

I was reading about research into reactors whose failure goes into a state that can't do anything disastrous. Do you know if that was bogus or are such designs being developed?
 
I honestly could write a book, to just address this.
I would totally and completely depend upon the problem ensuing.
Most problems that a reactor/reactor team could possibly encounter have been taken into consideration and some sort of reactor protection system would, in most circumstances, take effect. Safe reactor operation relies on redundancy, lots of back-up systems and well trained personnel but there can always be scenarios that could disable an entire plant, prevent certain protection systems from working, etc.
I've actually witnessed situations that we never would have 'thought' of happening just from a valve failing shut.
Reactors ARE built to immediately go into a 'safe' position, such as immediate neutron absorption (rods, or however the specific plant is built) but atomic reaction is exponential (easiest way to describe it) and can quickly get out of hand.
I think the situation you are addressing specifically Betsy MAY be poisoning the reactor. This is where certain neutron absorbing chemicals are injected into the reactor to 'poison' it, which does ultimately shut down a reactor totally and completely. Only problem with this, is that the reactor will NEVER be usable again. This is not something that I've ever seen used and is not something any reactor owning company would probably ever use in any condition just due to the amount of money that would be a lost (billions). I would foresee money taking precedence in this situation, if one of our commercial plants ever started failing for some reason.
 
Wow... Immediately after posting my "@ Tara" post, I googled "How many Nuclear Reactors does the US have?" Unfortunately, I picked an ANTI-Nuclear power site... go figure!!!

Anyway, thanks for the info Tara. I really had absolutely NO CLUE that we had that many operating reactors here in the US. I am glad to have been brought "more" up to speed! :)
 
Back
Top