The price of gas depends on ???

[Catawba]

If the private sector finds nuclear plants too risky, why should we support the federal government risking our tax dollars in such a venture?

To prevent the economic devastation of world peak oil that the US military warned could be soon. Of course, I prefer solar and wind power, increased efficiency of our present usage, and conservation over nuclear. But we are running out of time and we have diddled around for the last 40 years.

 

[1Perry]

What's the percentage of the total invested?

We've done this before. As long as politicians are going to promote alternative energies by giving big campaign donors tax payers money we are never going to get anywhere.

The entire thinks stinks and is only going to delay progress.

 

[1Perry]

No one in the private market would take on building nuclear plants due to the risk. So by your logic here, does this mean nuclear plants are not viable?

Yes they would. The technology is known and the profit is there.

 

[1Perry]

Simply put, if I understand some of my esteemed collegues here at DP correctly, it's quite simple actually.

1. If gasoline prices go up, it's all Obama's fault.

You need to work on reading a little closer and then try and address what people are actually stating.

 

[Catawba]

We've done this before. As long as politicians are going to promote alternative energies by giving big campaign donors tax payers money we are never going to get anywhere.

The entire thinks stinks and is only going to delay progress.

That is merely supposition on your part. No criminal wrongdoing has been proven.

 

[EagleAye]

If the private sector finds nuclear plants too risky, why should we support the federal government risking our tax dollars in such a venture?

I think the insurance companies are the real bottleneck here. The insurance companies either won't insure or demand outrageous rates The recent Fukushima troubles aren't helping with that. But when you look at all the numbers over time, nuclear has a far better safety record the most other energy forms. So nuclear is treated like it's a high risk, when in fact it's a low risk venture.

 

[Catawba]

Yes they would. The technology is known and the profit is there.

"The government must offer the loan guarantees if it wants a nuclear revival, because private

sources of capital will not accept the risk entailed in financing construction of new reactors."

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Tx14NdgvBK0J:www.nonukesyall.org/pdfs/unacceptable_risk.pdf+Nuclear+plants+require+loan+guarantees+becuase+of+the+risk&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi_-jLgQI62uKv_qrzKcj-acggMJUjM_lSLfkMm03kXMYWKcDHZOLxzqQmpPrSrxAW6mOCZ1986gj5_ZWgDAZWeGlcFy_r4ve7LjAj6sKVoJGpb_Knfzadm-cdUzFISiaKZi0aI&sig=AHIEtbRPvFKWiPuSODByLtS9PTIwsPfpww

 

[MoSurveyor]

We shouldn't be looking to Republicans or Democrats, or anyone else in the federal bureaucracy to develop alternative energy. We need to be looking to the private sector to do that.

The first step is to eliminate subsidies for current energy sources.

If solar is economically feasible, we'll have solar. Ditto nuclear and bio fuels.

Do you honestly not know how many discoveries made on Uncle Sam's dime have been turned into consumer goods? In the past those discoveries were the by-product of huge government investments with another goal, war. Most other major inventions not directly related to war research were the result of research conducted with private profits made off of war. But we haven't had a major war in over 20 years - the Cold War ended in 1991. There has been some government spending, UCAVs for example, that will help in some areas but the flood is gone. Without Uncle Sam the leaps and bounds are gone because private industry can't make money casting around in the dark looking for answers. If it doesn't make money fast, or have a huge pay-out at the end, then it won't be researched in the private sector. I don't really want to leave my future in the hands of profiteers.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for private enterprise developing consumer goods. American business has shown itself to be second to none when it comes to taking a good idea or discovery to market. But creating an environment to promote those good ideas and discoveries is not something private enterprise is good at - it's simply too expensive. Private enterprise doesn't believe in knowledge for the sake of knowledge.

If the private sector finds nuclear plants too risky, why should we support the federal government risking our tax dollars in such a venture?

Because Uncle Sam can do the basic research required to make it safe and profitable for the benefit of all. Thorium is a good example. Some research was done years ago on thorium but thorium plants can't make bomb material and they can't by used on bombers so that research was abandoned. Thorium is cleaner than the nuclear plants we've been using for 50+ years and it's a lot safer, but some work still needs to be done to hammer out the details of a full-scale plant - including the regulations required to monitor it. Without that work thorium is untenable. No power company will spend the up-front money required to make the first plant because it's competitors will profit from it's investment. Uncle Sam has not problems in that regard.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Yes they would. The technology is known and the profit is there.

You think private industry came up with nuclear power on their own? :lamo

 

[1Perry]

That is merely supposition on your part. No criminal wrongdoing has been proven.

Really, has nothing to do with my point so I'll just dismiss it.

 

[1Perry]

"The government must offer the loan guarantees if it wants a nuclear revival, because private

sources of capital will not accept the risk entailed in financing construction of new reactors."

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Tx14NdgvBK0J:www.nonukesyall.org/pdfs/unacceptable_risk.pdf+Nuclear+plants+require+loan+guarantees+becuase+of+the+risk&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi_-jLgQI62uKv_qrzKcj-acggMJUjM_lSLfkMm03kXMYWKcDHZOLxzqQmpPrSrxAW6mOCZ1986gj5_ZWgDAZWeGlcFy_r4ve7LjAj6sKVoJGpb_Knfzadm-cdUzFISiaKZi0aI&sig=AHIEtbRPvFKWiPuSODByLtS9PTIwsPfpww

Produced by "Earth Healing"?

 

[1Perry]

You think private industry came up with nuclear power on their own? :lamo

:lamo :lamo :lamo

Yah, that was fun. Please, do not try and put words in my mouth that I never said because you fail miserably at that.

 

[MoSurveyor]

:lamo :lamo :lamo

Yah, that was fun. Please, do not try and put words in my mouth that I never said because you fail miserably at that.

It sure sounded like you were slamming government for spending money to promote new power sources. I honestly wasn't sure you realized how silly your "The technology is known and the profit is there." line (InRe: nuclear power) looked in that light.

 

[MoSurveyor]

We've done this before. As long as politicians are going to promote alternative energies by giving big campaign donors tax payers money we are never going to get anywhere.

The entire thinks stinks and is only going to delay progress.

I agree, they should have followed past policy by handing a big outfit, like GE or other power generation experts, tens of billions for development but I'm sure there would have been even more uproar over that policy.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Do you honestly not know how many discoveries made on Uncle Sam's dime have been turned into consumer goods? In the past those discoveries were the by-product of huge government investments with another goal, war. Most other major inventions not directly related to war research were the result of research conducted with private profits made off of war. But we haven't had a major war in over 20 years - the Cold War ended in 1991. There has been some government spending, UCAVs for example, that will help in some areas but the flood is gone. Without Uncle Sam the leaps and bounds are gone because private industry can't make money casting around in the dark looking for answers. If it doesn't make money fast, or have a huge pay-out at the end, then it won't be researched in the private sector. I don't really want to leave my future in the hands of profiteers.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for private enterprise developing consumer goods. American business has shown itself to be second to none when it comes to taking a good idea or discovery to market. But creating an environment to promote those good ideas and discoveries is not something private enterprise is good at - it's simply too expensive. Private enterprise doesn't believe in knowledge for the sake of knowledge.

Because Uncle Sam can do the basic research required to make it safe and profitable for the benefit of all. Thorium is a good example. Some research was done years ago on thorium but thorium plants can't make bomb material and they can't by used on bombers so that research was abandoned. Thorium is cleaner than the nuclear plants we've been using for 50+ years and it's a lot safer, but some work still needs to be done to hammer out the details of a full-scale plant - including the regulations required to monitor it. Without that work thorium is untenable. No power company will spend the up-front money required to make the first plant because it's competitors will profit from it's investment. Uncle Sam has not problems in that regard.

so, the answer is that the federal government needs to fund research and develop new technology. Now, that's an idea even a libertarian can get behind... at least a luke warm libertarian like me.

But, can we please do it without a war this time? War is so messy, and is harmful to children and puppies.

 

[MoSurveyor]

so, the answer is that the federal government needs to fund research and develop new technology. Now, that's an idea even a libertarian can get behind... at least a luke warm libertarian like me.

But, can we please do it without a war this time? War is so messy, and is harmful to children and puppies.

I agree!

Apollo was a big investment, too, with lots of spin-offs. It was still, essentially, Cold War money but not directly warlike. Space science is one of the few big R&D funding sources except for the DoD - and Space is getting left behind in our economic woes. I fear DoD will be forced to scale back it's R&D as well.

 

[TheLastIndependent]

so, the answer is that the federal government needs to fund research and develop new technology. Now, that's an idea even a libertarian can get behind... at least a luke warm libertarian like me.

But, can we please do it without a war this time? War is so messy, and is harmful to children and puppies.

I believe that this is impossible. Social spending will never pass through the government out of fear of socialism.

 

[TheLastIndependent]

I agree!

Apollo was a big investment, too, with lots of spin-offs. It was still, essentially, Cold War money but not directly warlike.

It really was war spending. We feared that the Soviets would be able to use space to launch nukes at us. Again, America spends billions out of fear, no surprise... but the space craft didn't harm America.

 

[Catawba]

Produced by "Earth Healing"?

Nice ad hominem!

"The federal guarantees, authorized by Congress in 2005, are seen as essential for construction of any new reactor because of the huge expense involved."
Obama Nuclear Plant: President To Announce Loan Guarantee For More Than $8 Billion

"DOE has started a series of programs to provide incentives to new nuclear generators,
including the Nuclear Power 2010 (NP2010) Program. This program envisioned having a new
nuclear plant operating in the United States by 2010: “The conclusions and recommendations
provide important information for all decision-makers involved in the goal of operating a new
nuclear plant by 2010” (Crosbie and Kidwell 2004, iv). Several feasibility studies were funded,
including one for the construction of two units at the South Texas Project. However, few plants
were ordered until the passage of EPAct05, which recognized that a major obstacle to nuclear
plant orders was access to capital. The most important provision of EPAct05 was the Loan
Guarantee Program, which was intended to reimburse investors for the potential loss of their
capital and interest in constructing nuclear power plants. But no funds were allocated for this
program until later appropriations bills."

"EPAct05 Title XVII states that advanced nuclear plants are eligible for loan guarantees
(although it did not specify an amount). This has particular significance for the nuclear industry
because of the 1970s default of $2.25 billion of municipal debt by the Washington Public Power
Supply System for the construction of nuclear power plants in Washington State—at that time
the largest municipal bond default in U.S. history."

http://nepinstitute.org/get/RFF_Reports/Background-Papers/RFF-NEPI-Rothwell-Nuclear.pdf

 

[EagleAye]

But, can we please do it without a war this time? War is so messy, and is harmful to children and puppies.

And war is extremely expensive too. Nobody seems willing to admit that battles in the ME are the largest chunk of the oil subsidy. With Wind, Solar, and Wave, we don't have to build supertankers - escorted by carrier battlegroups - to safely get another shipment of sunlight and wind from Saudi Arabia.

 

[1Perry]

It sure sounded like you were slamming government for spending money to promote new power sources.

O.K.....I've argued in many threads that it is the government that should be developing certain technologys and then passing it off to private industry. I've discussed a little on maybe how they would do that, but the particulars aren't important. My statement was only in reply to the idea that private industry would never touch nuclear even though we now know how to do it.

The government should not be giving taxpayer money to private for profit industry.

I honestly wasn't sure you realized how silly your "The technology is known and the profit is there." line (InRe: nuclear power) looked in that light.

Good now?

 

[Catawba]

And war is extremely expensive too. Nobody seems willing to admit that battles in the ME are the largest chunk of the oil subsidy. With Wind, Solar, and Wave, we don't have to build supertankers - escorted by carrier battlegroups - to safely get another shipment of sunlight and wind from Saudi Arabia.

Excellent point, if we add in the cost to keep the oil flowing from the middle east, the real price we are paying for each gallon of gas is much more expensive than what people think its costing them.

 

[1Perry]

I agree, they should have followed past policy by handing a big outfit, like GE or other power generation experts, tens of billions for development but I'm sure there would have been even more uproar over that policy.

We are.

Are you saying that you also have a problem with this?

 

[1Perry]

And war is extremely expensive too. Nobody seems willing to admit that battles in the ME are the largest chunk of the oil subsidy. With Wind, Solar, and Wave, we don't have to build supertankers - escorted by carrier battlegroups - to safely get another shipment of sunlight and wind from Saudi Arabia.

You want to bring the soldiers home and use the money for new technologies? O.K., I'm on board. When do you think that might happen?

 

[EagleAye]

It really was war spending. We feared that the Soviets would be able to use space to launch nukes at us.

Yup, when it comes to national defense, we can get our butts in gear real fast. We should consider our national energy situation as congruent to national defense, because it is. We've got the world's most powerful military, but we're overwhelmingly dependent on foreign (sometimes hostile) countries for our nation's lifeblood. That's like building Fort Knox and then forgetting to put a lock on the door!