Thu, Aug 21, 2014, 10:29 AM EDT - U.S. Markets close in 5 hrs 31 mins


% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

USEC Inc. Message Board

throckmorton_from 11 posts  |  Last Activity: Aug 19, 2014 4:17 PM Member since: Mar 15, 2013
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • throckmorton_from throckmorton_from Aug 19, 2014 4:17 PM Flag

    Last winter, bitterly cold weather placed massive stress on the US electrical system ― and the system almost broke. On January 7 in the midst of the polar vortex, PJM Interconnection, the Regional Transmission Organization serving the heart of America from New Jersey to Illinois, experienced a new all-time peak winter load of almost 142,000 megawatts.

    Eight of the top ten of PJM’s all-time winter peaks occurred in January 2014. Heroic efforts by grid operators saved large parts of the nation’s heartland from blackouts during record-cold temperature days. Nicholas Akins, CEO of American Electric Power, stated in Congressional testimony, “This country did not just dodge a bullet ― we dodged a cannon ball.”

    In order to comply with the new Obama era EPA regs, American Electric Power, which supplies a major portion of the electricity used on the east coast, will be closing almost one quarter of their coal fired plants between now and next June. This is because they were economically unable to come into compliance with the new regulations in the impossibly short window of opportunity offered by the EPA. This is going to reduce the total surge capacity available for some of our most densely populated areas just when we may get hit with weather related demand spikes beyond anyone’s control.

    Having the power go out in the summer when you’re trying to run the air conditioning is bad enough. Losing heating when the temperatures head below zero for weeks on end is a recipe for disaster.

    As always, danageorge21, you win the award for most moronic post. You are our village idiot.

  • Reply to

    OT: Australians Repeal Carbon Tax

    by mickeymacmichael Jul 17, 2014 10:58 PM
    throckmorton_from throckmorton_from Jul 18, 2014 9:24 PM Flag

    If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by leftist idiots.

    If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by leftist idiots.

    If, in the nation’s largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by leftist idiots.

    If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by leftist idiots.

    Bad news, dana, you are the "wingnut goon squad" on this board. Your toxic personality, lack of common sense, and obnoxious posting reminds me of a zoo monkey hurling feces at people.

    The only difference is that the monkey is better informed and probably better groomed

  • throckmorton_from throckmorton_from Jul 16, 2014 12:44 PM Flag

    Board Trolls are such funny animals. They always assume you read their posts but in reality nobody cares.

    Go buy yourself a personality transplant. I'm sure it's covered under Obamacare.

  • throckmorton_from throckmorton_from Jul 15, 2014 1:58 PM Flag

    Do yourself a favor and put dana on "ignore" You don't miss anything worth reading and you make the board a more pleasant place.

    dana is a religious fanatic when it comes to global warming and will always believe MSNBC instead of those annoying "facts".

    If it wasn't for low information voters like dana, we'd all be happier and wealthier and we wouldn't have doubled the national debt in just six years with no end in sight.

    Don't bother replying, dana, you ignorant board troll. Nobody is reading your ignorant posts.

  • throckmorton_from throckmorton_from Jul 5, 2014 4:28 PM Flag

    Only you would make that twisted connection.

  • throckmorton_from by throckmorton_from Jul 2, 2014 6:25 AM Flag

    This Independence Day, Americans will celebrate the nation’s core values, especially freedom. But according to a new international poll, Americans have become significantly "less satisfied with the freedom to choose what they want to do with their lives."
    Seventy-nine percent of US residents are satisfied with their level of freedom, down from 91 percent in 2006, according to the Gallup survey, released Tuesday.
    That 12 point drop pushes the US from among the highest in the world in terms of perceived freedom to 36th place, outside the top quartile of the 120 countries sampled, trailing Paraguay, Rwanda, and the autonomous region of Nagarno-Karabakh.
    Only 10 nations experienced as sharp a drop as the United States in terms of the satisfaction of citizens with their level of freedom: Egypt, Greece, Italy, Venezuela, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Romania, Yemen, Pakistan, and Spain.
    Since June 2013, confidence of Americans in their government has dropped significantly. In a poll released Monday, Gallup reports a 7 point drop in confidence in the presidency (to 29 percent), a 4 point drop for the Supreme Court (to 30 percent), and a 3 point drop for Congress (to 7 percent, a record low.)
    According to another poll also released by Gallup on Tuesday, the portion of Americans who believe there to be “widespread corruption” in the US has jumped from 59 percent in 2006 to 79 percent in 2013.

  • throckmorton_from throckmorton_from Jun 17, 2014 2:58 PM Flag

    I doubt if you shorted 5 shares, much less 5,000

  • throckmorton_from throckmorton_from Jun 6, 2014 10:35 AM Flag

    Note to snort

    ........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
    ..........''...\.......... _.•´

  • throckmorton_from throckmorton_from Jun 3, 2014 2:46 PM Flag

    From the WA Examiner:
    So is the Obama proposal a pragmatic and centrist way to deal with global warming, or an economic calamity for hundreds of thousands of American families that will achieve little or nothing to improve the environment?

    Don't expect a straight answer to that question from the Obama administration, because the president himself appears to have lapsed back into his disastrous "if you like your health insurance, you can keep it — period" mode.

    That's seen in a claim Obama made Monday during a conference call with the American Lung Association concerning his proposal's likely effect on utility rates.

    The elephant in the living room

    According to The Wall Street Journal's Amy Harder, Obama said his proposal "provides a huge incentive for states and consumers to become more energy efficient. As a result, your electricity bills will shrink, as these standards will spur investment in energy efficiency and cutting waste."

    That's the exact opposite of what Obama said in a 2008 editorial board meeting at the San Francisco Chronicle: "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

    Obama's cheerleaders will no doubt defend him by claiming in 2008 he was referring to a different form of cap-and-trade compared to the state-level cap-and-trade system he's proposed in 2014.

    Utility bills will go up

    What is certain is that -- assuming it ever actually goes into effect -- Obama's proposal will force hundreds of power plants to convert from using coal fuel to natural gas.

    The conversion will be costly and those costs will be passed directly to consumers. The conversion will also take years to complete, meaning relief won't be coming for several election cycles.

    Put it all together and the political fallout from Obama's coal-industry killing power-plant regulation could dwarf the political problems created for Democrats by his endless delays of the Keystone XL

  • throckmorton_from throckmorton_from Jun 2, 2014 7:24 PM Flag

    Some Good News:

    The Associated Press explains how dangerous the situation is for embattled Democrats. “Some Democrats worried about re-elections have asked the White House, along with Republicans, to double the length of the rule-making comment period, until after this November’s elections,” reports Dina Cappiello. “The Chamber of Commerce said the rule would cost $50 billion to the economy and kill jobs. Harvard University said the regulation wouldn’t just reduce carbon but also would have a beneficial side effect: cleansing the air of other pollutants.” Reuters puts it more bluntly, reporting that the White House is “turning a blind eye” on vulnerable Democrats on the ballot opposed to the regulations. “The new rules, popular with the Democratic Party’s base, are one of Obama’s highest domestic priorities for his second term,” writes Jeff Mason. “But they are complicating the lives of Democrats in coal and oil-rich states such as West Virginia, Louisiana and Alaska, where candidates are piling on the president and the Environmental Protection Agency for proposing restrictions that could cost jobs locally. With control of the U.S. Senate up for grabs in the November congressional elections, Democrats’ hopes of maintaining their majority could rest on the very races where the new energy rules are deeply unpopular.”

    For years, Democrats like Mary Landrieu, Mark Begich and Mark Warner have insisted that their influence within the Democratic ranks was reason alone to support their reelection bids. Now, five months prior to the most difficult election of their careers, President Obama is turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to their concerns. An uphill climb just got even more difficult.

    Seize the day,

  • WA Times: Ten years ago, the Pentagon paid for a climate study that put forth many scary scenarios.

    Consultants told the military that, by now, California would be flooded by inland seas, The Hague would be unlivable, polar ice would be mostly gone in summer, and global temperatures would rise at an accelerated rate as high as 0.5 degrees a year.

    None of that has happened.

    Yet the 2003 report, “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security,” is credited with kick-starting the movement that, to this day and perhaps with more vigor than ever, links climate change to national security.

    The report also became gospel to climate change doomsayers, who predicted pervasive and more intense hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts.

    “The release of this report is what likely sparked the ‘modern era’ of security interest in climate affairs,” said Jeff Kueter, president of the George C. Marshall Institute, a nonprofit that examines scientific issues that affect public policy.

    A couple of the "predictions"
    • “Floating ice in the northern polar seas is mostly gone during the summer by 2010.”

    Today: Arctic sea ice remains. Warming in the polar region has reduced the ice extent, from 2.8 million square miles at its yearly summer minimum in 1979, when satellite measuring began, to 2.1 million square miles in 2013, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

    • Sacramento River levees will fail, creating “an inland sea” in California that “disrupts the aqueduct system transporting water.”

    Today: There are no inland seas in California.

    • There will be more floods, making coastal cities such as The Hague “unlivable” by 2007.

    Today: The Hague is still livable'

    I'm sure snort/dana is convinced these predictions actually all came through. On the world he lives on, they probably did.

5.1203-0.1997(-3.75%)10:27 AMEDT

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.