N2264J

I misspoke. What I should have typed is:
...the private sector will not insure these plants fully so your government ends up providing the insurance.

With consistently dire projections about the potential consequences of nuclear accidents, the private insurance industry has never been willing to assume more than a fraction of the nuclear industry's projected insurance needs. Exclusions and prorates for loss arising from the nuclear hazard are the norm:


http://www.casact.org/pubs/proceed/proceed68/68255.pdf

Price Anderson Act: The Billion Dollar Taxpayer Subsidy for Nuclear Power Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program 3aug01

Suffice it to say, the insurance demands for a wind, solar or geothermal farm is negligible compared to our subsidy to the nuclear industry.

You guys may not believe in global warming but the rest of the world does. So why not produce the clean energy technology/hardware they want and sell it to them? Our economy is dying on the vine because we no longer manufacture anything here.

Here's a clue: the buggy whip makers who stubbornly resisted adapting when automobiles appeared on the scene didn't fare well.

jungle

You fail to mention that the taxpayers have never had to pay for any nuclear claims. Price-Anderson merely limits liability, ever seen any real accidents outside the former Soviet Union? There haven't been any. Three Mile was more of a public relations drama than a real accident. The technology has come a long way since then.

Now, about those buggy whips. Wind and solar are the buggy whips. Nobody will buy them, therefore their manufacture is on the decline, except in a few third world countries, mostly in isolated single point operation. There are no large functioning plants anywhere in the world. Wishing otherwise won't change this, the fact is they aren't effective substitutes.

There are risks associated with every technology. The state of California has bankrupted its energy sector once already and is getting ready to do it again with poorly thought out mandates on energy policy. Spain and Denmark have proven that wind and solar are not effective substitutes even with massive government support.

I wonder if your conviction is matched by a solar panel on your roof and a windmill in your yard, could you tell us about that?


Again, show us the numbers and let's try to stay out of the whispy fantasy world.

N2264J

Tens of millions of taxpayer dollars have already been applied to nuclear mishaps, a portion of which was for Three Mile Island.

Maybe in your head.

U.S. Nuclear Accidents



By the way, my most recent electric bill for March 26 to April 27 is $21.51.

jungle

And wind and solar impact this in what way?

Let's stop making the trip to fantasy land, why are you avoiding the real numbers on wind and solar?

Since you seem incapable of discussing it, perhaps our gentle readers would enjoy an actual overview of the snake oil industry you are attempting to sell here:http://papundits.wordpress.com/2010/...wer-epic-fail/

And while we are at it, let's clear up the common misconceptions about nuclear power:http://papundits.wordpress.com/2009/...nuclear-power/

As always, any factual arguments are welcome, but rainbows and unicorns are best left to others. I have no experience there.

You will have to consult these people on those subjects:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roFB7...eature=related

N2264J

The clean up in NJ is only a portion of the hidden costs associated with nuclear electricity as the gulf disaster will be to the hidden cost at the pump.

The Associated Press: Tainted nuke plant water reaches major NJ aquifer

jungle

Some dawdle, fidget, worry, or spend their days chasing beautiful herds of silky unicorns across the pastures of their mind.

Some build real industry, with real output.

Nuclear power in France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Winged Wheeler

I disagree with your assertion that it is only the government that can provide the kind of stewardship that protects "the commons". There are lots of examples of the government mismanaging things--think of the Western forests and the fire suppression policy in the 20th century. I'm sure that we could have a thread that could go to many pages long listing examples of bureaucratic incompetence at all levels of government.

But that is not to say there is no place for responsible regulation. Ideally, this will take the form of establishing a market where costs are transparent and risks may be fairly assessed. In such a market, it may well be that this (Gulf of Mexico) well would not have been drilled--at least not with today's technology.

You imply that there was no regulation--that is not true. This was a US government licensed operation, complete with waivers and exceptions.

There are a lot of potential problems with government regulation--incompetent rule making, incompetent enforcement, corruption, corporate payoffs, etc. Complying with the regulatory regime creates an artificial appearance of reduced risk. For example, airlines have to abide by FAA rules regarding pilot duty and rest periods, but that has no necessary connection to whether or not the pilots are actually well rested.

Another problem with government regulation is that it causes (in part) the growth of the big corporations that you dislike so much. The burdens of regulatory compliance are harder on smaller companies. These smaller companies, driven toward extinction by compliance and tax policies, are those that live where they work and would be more apt to be efficient and careful with the environment. They are also less likely to be big players in the buying and selling of government favors.

Finally, the regulator supposes that he knows "how things should look". In a simple system, this is possible. For example, my front yard is almost exclusively perennial rye grass. Other plants are aggressively eliminated. It takes a lot of time, energy, money, chemicals, water, etc. to maintain this system. I (the regulator), have the resources and the inclination to maintain the lawn as such. My front yard is a perfect socialist society. But we are not blades of grass and the vision of one regulator can never satisfy the varied desires of our human economy.

Thus, instead of deciding how things ought to be, the regulator should assist in the establishment of transparent and free market. Then, other than protecting private property from fraud or forceful appropriation, the regulator should not be heard from again.

I don't claim that the ongoing oil spill is not a serious problem. And I don't excuse corporate fat cats from their legal responsibilities to clean this up. But I do not look to the wasteful and incompetent federal rodents to prevent this from happening again.

Cheers.

WW

Flying Low

if we had more nuke plants, we could have socialist worker's paradise, too.

great wine, cheese, and the whole month of August off from work?

hmm. where do I sign up?

N2264J

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/wo...lines&emc=tha2

At its very best, nuclear is a dangerous and expensive interim measure. My heart
goes out to the tens of thousands of Japanese people who are doomed to pay a horrible price in cancer and birth defects.

65 US reactors are located on or near a fault line. Millions of Americans live nearby.
The industry is simply uninsurable.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/en...318-1c0l1.html

DustyRoads

Didn't Lenin get pickled and put out on display somewhere? Leningrad maybe? Anyway, to celebrate, today for lunch I'll have a couple of Gherkins with my two beef hotdogs and ginger ale.