How a conservative should think

[tw]

From The Economist 19 May 2001

""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.

[jaguar]

Yes, i have to agree, campaign bribery, thats what it is. If you give millions to a politial party what are you expecting in return? It simply is that, bribery.
Depressing.

[Griff]

You make a very important point, tw. There has been a lot of talk recently about the GOP reaching out to libertarians. The problem Republicans have is that they are every bit as addicted to pork and subsidy (not to mention the police state) as their Democratic rivals. Libertarians won't sign on to that. Neither party is interested in market driven solutions, unless they are driving the market. I'll have to look for that article, if I can get into town before that issue is off the newstand. (are they on-line?)


Subsidies come in many forms, everything from dead Iraqis, to aircraft carriers, to nuclear waste disposal sites. Wouldn't a little transparency be refreshing?


The MBA's at the power company, inadequate journalism, uninformed consumerism, along with short-sighted self-serving legislators, and Luddites in the enviromental movement all bear some responsibility for Californias problems. You can measure out the blame as you wish but they are all guilty. I think I could write a very pleasurable anti- baby boomer rant here tying this whole thing together with some glittering generalities fomenting intergenerational conflict, but I'll save that joy for later.

tw, I'd appeciate any further clarity you can give to the subsidy issue. If we are going to create new public policy in the energy area (however much I loathe the idea) we need to at least know the price.

[adamzion]

Originally posted by tw
The conclusion is driven by a belief in free markets. Is that not what Republicans believe in? No.
[/b]

I've often noted that American businesspeople and policians play the role of capitalists when capitalism will make them money, but play the role of socialists when capitalism will cost them money. The CA energy crunch is a classic case in point of this.

Which, I hope, needs little more elaboration,
Z

[tw]

Originally posted by Griff
tw, I'd appeciate any further clarity you can give to the subsidy issue. If we are going to create new public policy in the energy area (however much I loathe the idea) we need to at least know the price.

I really don't know how much the public understands nuclear energy - or energy in general. Before there was a 3 Mile Island, there was reactor control lost in a breeder at Fermi 1 between Chicago and Detroit. For three days, they did not know if it was going to explode. The book is "We almost lost Detroit". Therefore I have known long ago that the insurance industry would never insure a nuclear power plant unless the federal government capped all claims. The famous report is " WASH(digits) " - the digits forgotten.

Lose a house to a nuclear accident and only get $1000 (I forget the actual numbers but the federal law on nuclear power restricts your ability to be reinburse outrageously). I have know this and other federal subsidizes to nuclear power (such as Yucca Flats) as routine. I always assumed every other reader also knew all this.

I assumed everyone knew that there had been many nuclear reactor explosions and other reactor loss of control before 3 Mile Island. Four nuclear reactors at full power in Brown's Ferry were almost totally lost when a candle created a fire - so that the reactors could not be shutdown. Again, everyone here knows this? To me, this is common knowledge for almost 20 years.

[tw]

Originally posted by Griff
I'll have to look for that article, if I can get into town before that issue is off the newstand. (are they on-line?)

http://www.economist.com

But you must either subscribe to the on-line or print edition to read many (but not all) of their articles.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by tw
I assumed everyone knew that there had been many nuclear reactor explosions and other reactor loss of control before 3 Mile Island. Four nuclear reactors at full power in Brown's Ferry were almost totally lost when a candle created a fire - so that the reactors could not be shutdown. Again, everyone here knows this? To me, this is common knowledge for almost 20 years.

Sorry tw...I was only 5. Not familiar with it.

However, I remember a sign posted on S. Cicero Ave. in Chicago near Midway airport. It had a bomb with the red "no" crossout. It said--Chicago: A nuclear-free city. I found it strange.

Now, I'm gonna find that pic...

[adamzion]

Originally posted by tw
Before there was a 3 Mile Island, there was reactor control lost in a breeder at Fermi 1 between Chicago and Detroit. For three days, they did not know if it was going to explode. The book is "We almost lost Detroit".
[/b]

From the looks of it, we <b>did</b> lose Detroit some time back.

Due to riots or US auto industry stupidity,
Z

[jaguar]

Think is bad in America?
YOU should see the Indian nuclear system!!!!!
WE had to watch an old currant affairs show on it for physics (teacher ran out of stuff for us to do lol)

There are so many leaks/contamination in some reactors rooms have signs in the like 300x which means its irradiated to 300 times the safe level, they were NO safety gear, tailings from mining and processing are dumped straight in rivers, causing horrible numbers of birth defects and downs syndrome....its just scary.

The other one is a kid in the US (I forgot where) build a WORKING FAST BREEDER in his backyard, using americium, out of smoke detectors, radium paint off old clocks, lithium out of batteries, and something out of lamp mantles, I forget what, made a neutron gun using the radium and americium, crazy shit, and he did it al with NO SHIELDING.
Fucking crazy, he now works for the department of the navy research.

Nuclear power is a big, ugly fuckup thats gonna keep reminded of for thousands of years. THey were meant to produce so much power that u'd barely bother to meter it, and it'd be so cheap it wasen't funny. Its expesnive to run, expensive to SAFELY remove the waste and often highly dangerous. For fucks sake, go renewable, its the only long term solution, pour the money into thsoe giant solar sats that microwave it back to earth, wave harnessing systems, giant wind farms in the desert, hydro, its the only way.

[Dagnabit]

Nuclear power is renewable energy. It just takes thousands of years to renew.

[jaguar]

*laughz, might want to check your science. Most nuclear reactors use Uranium 235 as the main fuel, around 4% of every kilo of uranium mind is Uranium 235, so you have got to mine on hell of allot. In that sense it’s almost worse than coal coz the bi-products of mining are often dangerously radioactive. On top of that it is NOT renewable, while I’ve forgotten the half-life for 256 it is VERY long, but we ain't going to get any more of it in a hurry, its going to run out long with fossil fuels, we just haven't been using it for as long/need less of it, it’s not renewable.

You can re-process spare fuel rods, which sounds renewable, all it is is removing the unused uranium 235 from the fuel rods to put in new ones.

[elSicomoro]

[quote]Originally posted by adamzion

From the looks of it, we <b>did</b> lose Detroit some time back.

Due to riots or US auto industry stupidity,
Z

Detroit was lost from approximately 1970-1995. It has recently resurfaced thanks to Dennis Archer, Eminem, and Kid Rock.

I've seen stranger things...now we just have to save Baltimore.

[classicman]

bump...

A few interesting posts from a long time ago that connect with some current threads going on right now.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by adamzion

I've often noted that American businesspeople and policians play the role of capitalists when capitalism will make them money, but play the role of socialists when capitalism will cost them money. The CA energy crunch is a classic case in point of this.

Which, I hope, needs little more elaboration,
Z

The problem with California is everything is done by ballot initiative. No one can successfully govern the state because of that. I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to...

[glatt]

don't hold your breath for a response from Adam