Q9 wrote:
Dunkopf wrote:
Nuclear reactors cost a few billion each to build. The only way to do it is with government subsidies. That would be a good solution to the energy problems though. Unfortunately big oil has their arm up the backside of most politicians. When you throw in a POTUS that's a big oil man then it sets us back quite a ways.
Not necessarily - if it will turn a profit, you can bet your bottom dollar that private companies will find a way to do it, and do it well. WITHOUT subsidies. Transcontinental Railroad - got subsidies, and ended up being ineffecient and poorly built. It also went bankrupt. Meanwhile... James Hill, Great Northern railroad. Also transcontinental, was the only such railroad to recieve no subsidies, was affordable, well-built, had superior working conditions (yes, it is possible to improve the conditions of railroad construction), was not circuitous, and ended up out-competing its subsidized competitors.
Private companies WILL find a way to make something cheaper - usually, this is through effeciency. Y'know, the only nuke reactor I've heard of that ever actually killed people was government run... Actually, Chernobyl was the only reactor to ever harm people.
What section of the Transcontinental are you addressing? I assume you're referencing the Crédit Mobilier scandal that involved both the `insiders' at Union Pacific and their `owned' congressmen. It pretty much wiped out common shareholders in UP and sucked a cool 20mill. from the government. The `vision thing' was sound (the U.S. wanted it built `go west, young man!' but the railroaders thought there was too much risk - not enough profit running the railroad once it was built). It wasn't the `subsidy' (covering the risk), it was the lack of oversight that always leads to this sort of thing. That said, UNP (Union Pacific) closed at $91.22 on Friday and the `posterity' of all the immigrants that rode those rails can't complain.
The reason Unit Number two (reactor), down the road, at Reform, Missouri isn't being built is because Ameren and and State can't agree on how much rate payers should be charged (during construction - hedging risk). The government should be covering this risk (eventual completion will provide the St. Louis area with more juice over many decades - this will result in more government revenues because private business will be hiring).
I agree, if energy producers were charged (taxed) on the basis of relative risk assessments (both safety and national security factored in), nuclear would be profitable out of the box with little government intervention. I would think that if we were to build out `all green' domestic energy, then we could tack on tariffs on anything manufactured in another nation using less than `green' (carbon neutral) energy (and feel morally superior about it). With excess electric capacity we'd be able to pursue both electric/hydrogen vehicles/high speed mag lev trains and large scale production of synthetic fuels, ala, Los Alamos' Green Freedom project:
http://www.lanl.gov/news/newsbulletin/pdf/Green_Freedom_Overview.pdf
Gen four reactor plans (near-beer):
https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1361&parentname=CommunityPage&parentid=9&mode=2
Better (write your congress critters):
http://energyfromthorium.com/2010/01/03/doe-inls-lack-of-ambition-for-the-21st-century/
The government is there to provide a direction (national energy policy for instance) and make sure NO private Business. can take a detour into `morally hazardous' territory (that which throttles the goose from which the golden eggs emerge). On the one hand this writer makes Tom Paine look like a staid school marm (individual liberty), on the other, when considering those who dip their muzzles into `moral hazard' he's right there with Joe Stalin, i.e., send the offenders on a short walk down a hall in the basement of the Lubyanka with a Tarkarov at the base of the skull...
We should be thinking big, retreat, or reinforcing failure (as Sen. Bachus seems to be doing at present) is not an option (imho).
Oh, if anyone is interested in where a portion of the 200 million dollars of our money went out of freddie/fannie for lobbying (no questions about
that total) to merely line the pockets of politicians:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html
ed:sp. as usual
Actually, Chernobyl was the only reactor to ever harm people.
