Forward our Bright and Atomic Future!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I have seen presentations that show nuclear as being cheaper, currently, on a 50 year basis.

That's because of the massive hidden subsidies.

And looking at China, I would not prefer whichever was cheaper.

China uses much dirtier coal.

[Kuciwalker]

No one's asked me what the subsidies are yet

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

We don't get much power from oil in the US.

How's that car treating you?

We have enormous coal reserves.

And we will have an even bigger demand on the powergrid as more people take mass transit(c'mon Dude...you live in Northern Virginia), and with gas prices always rising that mass transit is going to be electrified rail lines.

I'd prefer whichever is cheaper.

Not the one more likely to give you cancer?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lonestar
How's that car treating you?

Nuclear isn't about to run my car anytime soon, even indirectly.

And we will have an even bigger demand on the powergrid as more people take mass transit(c'mon Dude...you live in Northern Virginia), and with gas prices always rising that mass transit is going to be electrified rail lines.

And we have enormous reserves of coal.

Not the one more likely to give you cancer?

Er, yeah, presumably I wouldn't prefer that one

[Kuciwalker]

If nuclear really is cheaper for society as a whole, then cut the hidden subsidies and the free market will sort it out

[snoopy369]

If that doesn't make sense to you, Kuci, then you need to learn a bit more about the political theories you appear to be supporting. (As do most economic-libertarian types.) I suppose you might just be using "that doesn't make sense" because you don't know how to argue against it and therefore prefer to dismiss it, but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

The government should step in with subsidies (or other forms of positive regulation) for one, and only one, major reason. To support a technology or other company or industry that provides a public good, or provides a necessary good or service in a way that benefits society as a whole, at a cost to that company or industry.

Causing power companies to choose nuclear power over coal power benefits society as a whole, and therefore it is in the public interest to encourage them being built. Thus government subsidies are appropriate, particularly in alleviating startup costs.

The point is, the market will always choose the more profitable option. When it is in society's best interest to choose a different option, and there is an acceptable option that is close enough to the market's choice that the market can be encouraged to choose it, government subsidies are the correct option (so long as the amount of the public good >= the cost of the government subsidy).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by snoopy369
If that doesn't make sense to you, Kuci, then you need to learn a bit more about the political theories you appear to be supporting. (As do most economic-libertarian types.) I suppose you might just be using "that doesn't make sense" because you don't know how to argue against it and therefore prefer to dismiss it, but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Whoosh.

FYI, I use it because your statements are just plain non sequiters. You state a logical implication where there is none.

(Or in the case of the first statement, the assumption was false. We shouldn't be subsidizing anything.)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by snoopy369
The government should step in with subsidies (or other forms of positive regulation) for one, and only one, major reason. To support a technology or other company or industry that provides a public good, or provides a necessary good or service in a way that benefits society as a whole, at a cost to that company or industry.

Electricity isn't one of those cases, though. The good provided by electrical utilities is easily measurable, and their compensation is in direct proportion to it.

Causing power companies to choose nuclear power over coal power benefits society as a whole, and therefore it is in the public interest to encourage them being built.

That is not clear, because the hidden government subsidies make it impossible to estimate the true cost of nuclear.

Thus government subsidies are appropriate, particularly in alleviating startup costs.

These subsidies don't alleviate startup costs in any substantial form, at least no more than they alleviate all costs.

[Ben Kenobi]

The government should step in with subsidies (or other forms of positive regulation) for one, and only one, major reason. To support a technology or other company or industry that provides a public good, or provides a necessary good or service in a way that benefits society as a whole, at a cost to that company or industry.

Well there are other, and better ways to provide positive benefits to encourage investment. They are called tax breaks.

Causing power companies to choose nuclear power over coal power benefits society as a whole, and therefore it is in the public interest to encourage them being built. Thus government subsidies are appropriate, particularly in alleviating startup costs.

Then why shouldn't the government require all plants to shift to nuclear power?

The point is, the market will always choose the more profitable option.

And why is this a bad thing? If the markets were truly allowed to operate, then America wouldn't have any power shortages, they would likely have a power excess, as it would be more profitable to sell energy then it would be to build smaller to match the current capacity. If coal is cheaper then nuclear technology, but there is a demand for nuclear technology, then that gives firms an incentive to build cheaper nuclear plants in order to tap into this demand.

When it is in society's best interest to choose a different option, and there is an acceptable option that is close enough to the market's choice that the market can be encouraged to choose it, government subsidies are the correct option (so long as the amount of the public good >= the cost of the government subsidy).

How does one measure the amount of 'public good'?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Nuclear isn't about to run my car anytime soon, even indirectly.

Call me back when Oil hits $120 a barrel. And GW Emissions laws prevent the internal combustion engine from being viable.

And we have enormous reserves of coal.

Not nearly enough to cover our energy demands. Especially once it becomes economically viable to convert that coal into liquid fuel.

M1A3 Abrams powered by Coal Slurry!

Er, yeah, presumably I wouldn't prefer that one

But you just said you wanted the cheaper(coal) one!

[Kuciwalker]

Call me back when Oil hits $120 a barrel. And GW Emissions laws prevent the internal combustion engine from being viable.

I'm not giving a silly "omgthenukeswillsplode" argument, and it'd be nice if you returned the favor

Not nearly enough to cover our energy demands. Especially once it becomes economically viable to convert that coal into liquid fuel.

Assuming absolutely no improvements in technology and normal increases in energy use there is enough coal to provide all of the world's energy for 60 years.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

I'm not giving a silly "omgthenukeswillsplode" argument, and it'd be nice if you returned the favor

Sure thing lad. Call me back when you're shelling out $100 a tank for the civic.

Incidentally, IEA says we've got a oil supply crunch coming after 2010.

Assuming absolutely no improvements in technology and normal increases in energy use there is enough coal to provide all of the world's energy for 60 years.

But there won't be normal increases in power, what we'll see is a massive increase in demand from the powergrid with a corresponding decrease in petrol products. So there's nothing "normal" about it.

[chequita guevara]

nukes
wave bells

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Assuming absolutely no improvements in technology and normal increases in energy use there is enough coal to provide all of the world's energy for 60 years.

Not a world I would want to live in.

Coal power plants are bad as far as environmental quality goes.

JM

[Lonestar]

going to hit the pit...need to to wake up in 7hrs to contribute to the Military-Industrial complex.