5 ms·

"control by the state" is a choice. Well, eating is a choice. And yet I choose to eat every day. The word 'choice' conveys very different meanings: everything

"control by the state" is a choice. Well, eating is a choice. And yet I choose to eat every day. The word 'choice' conveys very different meanings: everything we do is a choice, but many of our actions are highly constrained. After decades of nuclear power development, no one earth has successfully run a nuclear power system without massive government funding or control. That suggests that we don't know how to do such a thing. The "massive investment" for nuclear power is well within the capabilities of many US companies. Not in anything that looks like a free market. Right now, the federal government provides very large subsidies to nuclear power operators. As a result, we've had...no new nuclear power plants built in the last three decades. In the absence of the massive government subsidies we have in place now, I don't believe there are any utilities that could afford to build a nuclear plant on their own or secure the necessary financing. Note that at least some of the "expense" is also a choice. And yet nuclear power is very expensive all over the world. Nuclear power plants are almost always over budget and late no matter where they're built. When different people all over the world keep making the same mistakes, at some point, you have to consider the possibility that all these mistakes are not just random individual failures but reflect intrinsic properties of current reactor technology. We spend a lot of money on nukes that has nothing to do with safety or power production. I don't know what you're referring to here.

orangecat 16y ago
Right now, the federal government provides very large subsidies to nuclear power operators. Ok, but then to be fair a substantial portion of the defense budget should be counted as subsidies to oil companies. And yet nuclear power is very expensive all over the world. Nuclear power plants are almost always over budget and late no matter where they're built. The French seem to not be starving. And large projects being late and over budget is not at all surprising, regardless of the field.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  Ok, but then to be fair a substantial portion of the defense budget should be counted as subsidies to oil companies. I've heard this before and it makes no sense to me. The US spends a lot of money on defense because Americans love the military and use it to funnel money into all sorts of places that would otherwise be quite poor. And most US military operations around the world don't do anything to reduce the price of oil. I mean, Iraq is not exactly giving us oil for free now is it? The French seem to not be starving. True, they're not. But the original claim was that liberal opposition to nuclear power was the problem. My counterclaim was that you will find zero support amongst American conservatives for a nuclear power policy anything like the successful one used in France. Can you point to any important American conservatives who publicly speak favorably about the France's nuclear system and advocate for adopting it in the US? And large projects being late and over budget is not at all surprising, regardless of the field. I have friends that do design and construction for power plants and, according to them, the cost and schedule overruns in nuclear plant construction really are surprising.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > My counterclaim was that you will find zero support amongst American conservatives for a nuclear power policy anything like the successful one used in France. Can you point to any important American conservatives who publicly speak favorably about the France's nuclear system and advocate for adopting it in the US? So what? Note that US conservatives do support more nuclear plants like the ones that we have. It's also fairly easy to find conservative support for nuclear power under a variety of other circumstances. Yes, France does use reprocessing, but the US nuclear power industry didn't ban that here. Do you want to argue that the French system is cheaper because the French govt is not subject to the review cost that US companies must pay? Or is it that the French govt doesn't have to pay certain "in operation" costs by virtue of being a govt? In either case, imposing those costs is clearly a choice. BTW - You can't damn someone for not going along with an "authority" unless you accept said authority. In other words, by suggesting that we should agree with said conservatives in all things, you're saying that you do.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > I mean, Iraq is not exactly giving us oil for free now is it? Good point. Suppose that you wanted to use the US military to get cheap oil. Would your plan for doing so have anything to do with how the US military is currently deployed?
anamax 16y ago
> After decades of nuclear power development, no one earth has successfully run a nuclear power system without massive government funding PG&E does. So do the other private power companies in the US that have nukes. > or control. What do you mean by "control"? The US does regulate power companies, but it's unclear that such regulation makes it possible for them to run nuclear power plants. > Right now, the federal government provides very large subsidies Nope. It limits their liability, which is different. If you think that their without-such-limits liability is close to correct, the liability that we apply to other power sources is hugely wrong (on the low side). Which reminds me - are there any privately operated power producing dams in the world? If not, then surely hydropower .....

orangecat 16y ago

Right now, the federal government provides very large subsidies to nuclear power operators. Ok, but then to be fair a substantial portion of the defense budget should be counted as subsidies to oil companies. And yet nuclear power is very expensive all over the world. Nuclear power plants are almost always over budget and late no matter where they're built. The French seem to not be starving. And large projects being late and over budget is not at all surprising, regardless of the field.

MichaelSalib 16y ago
Ok, but then to be fair a substantial portion of the defense budget should be counted as subsidies to oil companies. I've heard this before and it makes no sense to me. The US spends a lot of money on defense because Americans love the military and use it to funnel money into all sorts of places that would otherwise be quite poor. And most US military operations around the world don't do anything to reduce the price of oil. I mean, Iraq is not exactly giving us oil for free now is it? The French seem to not be starving. True, they're not. But the original claim was that liberal opposition to nuclear power was the problem. My counterclaim was that you will find zero support amongst American conservatives for a nuclear power policy anything like the successful one used in France. Can you point to any important American conservatives who publicly speak favorably about the France's nuclear system and advocate for adopting it in the US? And large projects being late and over budget is not at all surprising, regardless of the field. I have friends that do design and construction for power plants and, according to them, the cost and schedule overruns in nuclear plant construction really are surprising.
- anamax 16y ago
  > My counterclaim was that you will find zero support amongst American conservatives for a nuclear power policy anything like the successful one used in France. Can you point to any important American conservatives who publicly speak favorably about the France's nuclear system and advocate for adopting it in the US? So what? Note that US conservatives do support more nuclear plants like the ones that we have. It's also fairly easy to find conservative support for nuclear power under a variety of other circumstances. Yes, France does use reprocessing, but the US nuclear power industry didn't ban that here. Do you want to argue that the French system is cheaper because the French govt is not subject to the review cost that US companies must pay? Or is it that the French govt doesn't have to pay certain "in operation" costs by virtue of being a govt? In either case, imposing those costs is clearly a choice. BTW - You can't damn someone for not going along with an "authority" unless you accept said authority. In other words, by suggesting that we should agree with said conservatives in all things, you're saying that you do.
- anamax 16y ago
  > I mean, Iraq is not exactly giving us oil for free now is it? Good point. Suppose that you wanted to use the US military to get cheap oil. Would your plan for doing so have anything to do with how the US military is currently deployed?

anamax 16y ago

> After decades of nuclear power development, no one earth has successfully run a nuclear power system without massive government funding PG&E does. So do the other private power companies in the US that have nukes. > or control. What do you mean by "control"? The US does regulate power companies, but it's unclear that such regulation makes it possible for them to run nuclear power plants. > Right now, the federal government provides very large subsidies Nope. It limits their liability, which is different. If you think that their without-such-limits liability is close to correct, the liability that we apply to other power sources is hugely wrong (on the low side). Which reminds me - are there any privately operated power producing dams in the world? If not, then surely hydropower .....