From The Economist 19 May 2001
Quote:
""That is why the real argument over nuclear's future should rest on economics. Given the industry's history of cost overruns and wasted billions, the claim of dramatically improved economics would, if true, support a revival. Alas, as our special report makes clear, the claim is dubious. The industry has certainly learnt how to run eixsting plants efficiently; but like the Concorde aircraft, this depends on the capital costs having been forgotten. And nuclear plants continue to depend on vast (and largely hidden) subsidies.
Why in the world should such a mature, well-capitalized industry receive subsidies, such as goverment liability insurance or help with the costs of waste disposal and decommissioning? Given the world's move to freer markets in energy, the time has surely come for governmnets to stop coddling this business. At a minimum, officials should make the existing subsidies more transparent. Then, if they believe some national goal is served only by nuclear power, they should ensure that all future government support is explicit - enabling it to be challenged in a democratic debate.""
|
The conclusion is driven by a belief in free markets. Is that not what Republicans believe in? No. They say they believe in free markets, but right wing Republicans live on campaign bribery and extremist emotion. That money from a government subsidized industry was just too much to ignore last night in Cheney's fund raiser. That emotion is all about blaming environmentalist and everyone else (except MBAs in those CA energy companies) for energy problems. Where are the people's interests represented? In the free markets. But in Republican extremist rhetoric - humanity be damned.
At least The Economist uses intelligence to reach conclusions. What does George Jr and his extremist friends use? Above from The Economist is how a conservative should think rather as compared to how extremist conservatives really think.