Forward our Bright and Atomic Future!

[GePap]

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

not everything should be run based "on the market." Hell, most things shouldn't.

[Kuciwalker]

OTOH, this is one case where the market would provide the perfect solution

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
OTOH, this is one case where the market would provide the perfect solution

Sorry, what is the problem?

Oh, yeah, 'subsidies'.....

[Kuciwalker]

Yep. Nuclear power receives a huge amount of money in subsidies - in fact, it's practically incalculable.

[GePap]

Good. I like Nuclear power. I prefer my tax dollars going there than to ethanol.

[Kuciwalker]

1) that's a pretty stupid false dichotomy, and you're not even the first person in this thread to commit that fallacy.

2) you want the subsidies structured in such a way that the actual dollar amount is unknowable?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
1) that's a pretty stupid false dichotomy, and you're not even the first person in this thread to commit that fallacy.

What fallacy? Wake up. There will always be some kind of "subsidy." Want to get rid of them? Get rid of money from politics...otherwise, forget about it. And personally, I like nuclear power, so I don't mind there being governmental support for more nuclear power plants.

2) you want the subsidies structured in such a way that the actual dollar amount is unknowable?

NOt particularly, but then, even if I knew how much they did spend, I would not mind, as I said above.

[Kuciwalker]

What fallacy? Wake up.

False dichotomy, as I said before. Can you read?

There will always be some kind of "subsidy." Want to get rid of them? Get rid of money from politics...otherwise, forget about it.

It's still a false dichotomy, in that spending on nuclear power would somehow preclude other, even more undesirable subsidies. This is especially true given that this nuclear subsidy will appear in no approprations bill in Congress.

And personally, I like nuclear power, so I don't mind there being governmental support for more nuclear power plants.

That's a non sequiter in the strictest sense of the term.

[Kuciwalker]

NOt particularly, but then, even if I knew how much they did spend, I would not mind, as I said above.

You'd be okay with absolutely any amount of spending on nuclear power? That's rather curious.

[Imran Siddiqui]

One should also take into account the hidden costs of coal and oil before lamblasting nuclear subsidies. Mainly, the externalities involved in air pollution caused by the coal and oil plants for which they do not pay for. In addition, our troop levels in the MidEast are, in all respects, a hidden subsidy for oil (why else are they there? why else would we care?).

FTR, I support government subsidies for nuclear power. I think this is something the government should promote by pushing the market in that direction.

[q=Ben Kenobi]Well there are other, and better ways to provide positive benefits to encourage investment. They are called tax breaks. [/q]

Err... Ben...

[q=Article]The filing marked another small step toward a resurgence of the nuclear power industry, bolstered by generous federal tax incentives and growing concern about the greenhouse gases emitted by coal-fired plants, which supply half the country's electricity.[/q]

Tax breaks are a big portion of the subsidy.

[PLATO]

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

Normally I would agree that the market should work its miracle. In this particular case, I disagree.

Nuclear power needs more than just a subsidy. The government needs to fund efforts to produce a standardized design for nuclear power plants. Private and quasi-govermental power companies will not do this on their own as it would not be corporately cost efficient. A standardized design would be beneficial, once implemented, in encouraging economies of scale and in the end reducing cost to a level where a subsidy is no longer needed for near-term profitability.

Yucca Mountain is, imho, an excellent storage site and has a large capacity. Long term storage of nuclear waste presents less environmental harm than continuously burning fossil fuels does. Nuclear power produces no green house gases.

The only things that holds this country back from a sensible nuclear policy is the risk of non standardized designs, poor worker training, poor supervision of workers, and fear.

All but fear are solvable. If the government needs to provide the impetus for this, then I am good with this one.

[Kuciwalker]

Nuclear power needs more than just a subsidy. The government needs to fund efforts to produce a standardized design for nuclear power plants. Private and quasi-govermental power companies will not do this on their own as it would not be corporately cost efficient. A standardized design would be beneficial, once implemented, in encouraging economies of scale and in the end reducing cost to a level where a subsidy is no longer needed for near-term profitability.

...

To the degree that this is economically feasible, I'm sure it's already happened. And anyway, that's not the subsidy provided by the federal govt that I'm complaining about.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Tax breaks are a big portion of the subsidy.

I'm not talking about those. Those are open. There are hidden subsidies whose value we don't know.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
One should also take into account the hidden costs of coal and oil before lamblasting nuclear subsidies. Mainly, the externalities involved in air pollution caused by the coal and oil plants for which they do not pay for.

Coal is held accountable to a degree through regulation. Nuclear is not held accountable for its externalities at all.

(Perhaps that should be externality, singular.)

In addition, our troop levels in the MidEast are, in all respects, a hidden subsidy for oil (why else are they there? why else would we care?).

I remember you leaving the right after 2004, but I don't remember when you became a lefty tool

[Blake]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
One should also take into account the hidden costs of coal and oil before lamblasting nuclear subsidies. Mainly, the externalities involved in air pollution caused by the coal and oil plants for which they do not pay for.

Coal is held accountable to a degree through regulation. Nuclear is not held accountable for its externalities at all.

(Perhaps that should be externality, singular.)

Hmmm, I'm not a big fan of Nuclear Power.

But Nuclear Power has externalities? I thought that the safe disposal of the waste IS basically paid for and thus the waste is not an externality. I mean they aren't like "We'll just dump this stuff in the river", it's probably going to end up somewhere where it wont really hurt anyone.