Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (64186)	5/7/2008 4:35:55 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543205

Well, no, not exactly. But they sure don't think it will reduce it by ten percent. Closer to half than ten percent. Not necessarily. I know some who look at it that way, but not everyone. but a whole helluva lot more than we have now. That much I agree with. But I don't think you can reasonably argue that he was thinking along the lines of adding a dozen. Not a dozen, but 1 - No specific plan at all. Not only I think, for the number of plants (that much is clearly true), but even for the percentage. People tend to pick extreme positive examples of the idea they are talking about, rather than some estimate they consider most highly realistic, esp. when they are making an offhand comment like McCain did rather than say writing an article or a paper on the subject. 2 - To the extent there was some vague sense in his head, it could have been much more than a dozen but still much less than 700. Something like say 230 would be a lot more than a dozen but still well short of 700. Another point is that even if it was really a McCain plan, such a headline might make people think the number of plants would increase by 700, but that number includes replacements for all current nuclear power plants. (But since there is only 104 nuke plants in the US, it doesn't make a massive difference).