Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
equalizer
Participantxbox,
Whats the address on the UTC condo sold for 391?
The bird rock place was sold for 450K in 96. In ten years it went up from 450K to 2.3M, now 1.8M. Not too shabby!
Participantxbox,
Whats the address on the UTC condo sold for 391?
The bird rock place was sold for 450K in 96. In ten years it went up from 450K to 2.3M, now 1.8M. Not too shabby!
Participantxbox,
Whats the address on the UTC condo sold for 391?
The bird rock place was sold for 450K in 96. In ten years it went up from 450K to 2.3M, now 1.8M. Not too shabby!
Participantxbox,
Whats the address on the UTC condo sold for 391?
The bird rock place was sold for 450K in 96. In ten years it went up from 450K to 2.3M, now 1.8M. Not too shabby!
Participantxbox,
Whats the address on the UTC condo sold for 391?
The bird rock place was sold for 450K in 96. In ten years it went up from 450K to 2.3M, now 1.8M. Not too shabby!
ParticipantAdults who consider themselves Democrat Adults Independent Adults Republican Avg
…………………………………Dem…..Ind…….Rep
Annual Household Income $45K … $43K … $54Khttp://www.copernicusmarketing.com/about/political_party_profile.shtml
From the CIA:
The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a “two-tier labor market” in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
ParticipantAdults who consider themselves Democrat Adults Independent Adults Republican Avg
…………………………………Dem…..Ind…….Rep
Annual Household Income $45K … $43K … $54Khttp://www.copernicusmarketing.com/about/political_party_profile.shtml
From the CIA:
The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a “two-tier labor market” in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
ParticipantAdults who consider themselves Democrat Adults Independent Adults Republican Avg
…………………………………Dem…..Ind…….Rep
Annual Household Income $45K … $43K … $54Khttp://www.copernicusmarketing.com/about/political_party_profile.shtml
From the CIA:
The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a “two-tier labor market” in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
ParticipantAdults who consider themselves Democrat Adults Independent Adults Republican Avg
…………………………………Dem…..Ind…….Rep
Annual Household Income $45K … $43K … $54Khttp://www.copernicusmarketing.com/about/political_party_profile.shtml
From the CIA:
The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a “two-tier labor market” in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
ParticipantAdults who consider themselves Democrat Adults Independent Adults Republican Avg
…………………………………Dem…..Ind…….Rep
Annual Household Income $45K … $43K … $54Khttp://www.copernicusmarketing.com/about/political_party_profile.shtml
From the CIA:
The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a “two-tier labor market” in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
ParticipantWSJ clearly lays out that nuclear is NOT economically feasilbe without massive subsidies from Govt and/or ratepayers, and carbon Gore tax. It’s the Economics, Stupid: Nuclear Power’s Bogeyman
A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates. Acknowledging that historical costs for nuclear plants always doubled or tripled their initial estimates. So $12 billion is minimum cost for nuclear plant.
Cambridge Energy Research Associates Inc., a research and consulting firm in Massachusetts that is a unit of IHS Co, all types of power plants are feeling the pinch. Components and construction materials for nuclear power plants scored the biggest run-up in costs, up 173% — nearly tripled — since 2000. Most of that increase has taken place since 2005. Costs for turbines used to generate wind power more than doubled, at 108%, and natural gas-fueled and coal-fired plants saw their capital costs nearly double, up 92% and 78%, respectively.
If anything, the index likely minimizes the rising cost of building power plants, because it doesn’t factor in financing costs, and it doesn’t include fuel costs
ParticipantWSJ clearly lays out that nuclear is NOT economically feasilbe without massive subsidies from Govt and/or ratepayers, and carbon Gore tax. It’s the Economics, Stupid: Nuclear Power’s Bogeyman
A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates. Acknowledging that historical costs for nuclear plants always doubled or tripled their initial estimates. So $12 billion is minimum cost for nuclear plant.
Cambridge Energy Research Associates Inc., a research and consulting firm in Massachusetts that is a unit of IHS Co, all types of power plants are feeling the pinch. Components and construction materials for nuclear power plants scored the biggest run-up in costs, up 173% — nearly tripled — since 2000. Most of that increase has taken place since 2005. Costs for turbines used to generate wind power more than doubled, at 108%, and natural gas-fueled and coal-fired plants saw their capital costs nearly double, up 92% and 78%, respectively.
If anything, the index likely minimizes the rising cost of building power plants, because it doesn’t factor in financing costs, and it doesn’t include fuel costs
ParticipantWSJ clearly lays out that nuclear is NOT economically feasilbe without massive subsidies from Govt and/or ratepayers, and carbon Gore tax. It’s the Economics, Stupid: Nuclear Power’s Bogeyman
A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates. Acknowledging that historical costs for nuclear plants always doubled or tripled their initial estimates. So $12 billion is minimum cost for nuclear plant.
Cambridge Energy Research Associates Inc., a research and consulting firm in Massachusetts that is a unit of IHS Co, all types of power plants are feeling the pinch. Components and construction materials for nuclear power plants scored the biggest run-up in costs, up 173% — nearly tripled — since 2000. Most of that increase has taken place since 2005. Costs for turbines used to generate wind power more than doubled, at 108%, and natural gas-fueled and coal-fired plants saw their capital costs nearly double, up 92% and 78%, respectively.
If anything, the index likely minimizes the rising cost of building power plants, because it doesn’t factor in financing costs, and it doesn’t include fuel costs
ParticipantWSJ clearly lays out that nuclear is NOT economically feasilbe without massive subsidies from Govt and/or ratepayers, and carbon Gore tax. It’s the Economics, Stupid: Nuclear Power’s Bogeyman
A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates. Acknowledging that historical costs for nuclear plants always doubled or tripled their initial estimates. So $12 billion is minimum cost for nuclear plant.
Cambridge Energy Research Associates Inc., a research and consulting firm in Massachusetts that is a unit of IHS Co, all types of power plants are feeling the pinch. Components and construction materials for nuclear power plants scored the biggest run-up in costs, up 173% — nearly tripled — since 2000. Most of that increase has taken place since 2005. Costs for turbines used to generate wind power more than doubled, at 108%, and natural gas-fueled and coal-fired plants saw their capital costs nearly double, up 92% and 78%, respectively.
If anything, the index likely minimizes the rising cost of building power plants, because it doesn’t factor in financing costs, and it doesn’t include fuel costs
-
AuthorPosts
