Forward our Bright and Atomic Future!

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
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.

I think this thread would be easier if you just linked to whatever foolish blog you read your mystery talking point from instead of begging people to ask you what it is.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm just highly amused at GePap rushing to the defense of something when he doesn't even know what it is. (I've brought the same point up in the past 20 or so threads on nuclear, I'm surprised people aren't catching on by now. Oh, and there's no link because I didn't take it from anyone that I know of.)

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.

Nuclear's externality is the risk of a catastrophic meltdown. Nuclear plants don't have to get insurance - at least not private insurance - so basically the federal government is subsidizing each plant by as much as the insurance would cost. Even though the probability of a meltdown is extremely low, and the probability of a meltdown causing significant surrounding damage even lower, the cost to clean it up would be so immense that it could even bankrupt the insurance companies. It would certainly bankrupt the utility.

[Lonestar]

Kuci, even Adam Smith wrote that works such as "roads" should be supported by the government, not the free market. I'm sure that utilities would also fall under his defination of what should be supported by the government, had such beasts existed in his time.

[Az]

Nuclear's externality is the risk of a catastrophic meltdown. Nuclear plants don't have to get insurance - at least not private insurance - so basically the federal government is subsidizing each plant by as much as the insurance would cost. Even though the probability of a meltdown is extremely low, and the probability of a meltdown causing significant surrounding damage even lower, the cost to clean it up would be so immense that it could even bankrupt the insurance companies. It would certainly bankrupt the utility.

What are the estimates on people dying from air pollution on a per day basis in the US? even if you consider that power utilities are contributing a fraction of the air pollution, I think that the money that should be paid as reparation to the families is unnerving, and is a hidden subsidy by all society to these companies.

and Adam Smith is a commie lol.

[_BuRjaCi_]

Nuclear power
Hydro Power
Solar power

Coal plants

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.)

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

"To a degree through regulation", but not nearly as much as its costs, through air pollution. How much do coal plant companies have to pay for the negative effects of poor air quality? Not all that much. As Az pointed out, there are massive hidden subsidies to coal and oil generating power plants in that they don't have to account for the full effects of their pollution.

Oh, and nuclear plants are subject to very high levels of regulation itself. That's one of the reasons it costs so much to run.

And if you don't think that MidEast troop levels aren't so high because it has an important strategic resource (ie, oil), then I can only contend that you are . I figured that would be fairly controversial. It's why the US has had high troops levels there as opposed to, say, the Congo. And that is a hidden subsidy to keep the oil flowing, fairly uninterrupted. That's not counting all the nice tax breaks we give to oil and coal companies.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It's why the US has had high troops levels there as opposed to, say, the Congo.

Uh...are you sure it isn't because the Congolese are busy killing each other?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Uh...are you sure it isn't because the Congolese are busy killing each other?

Do you think they'd be willing to do the same if US troops were in great numbers throughout the country?

Not as if the Arabs weren't guilty of being busy killing each other (Iran-Iraq, Iraq-Kuwait, Fatah-Hamas, etc).

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by 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.

It wasn't done 30 years ago. Starting to do so is part of what might european nuclear plants so successful.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

Tax breaks are a big portion of the subsidy.

Tax breaks! = subsidies

Subsidies are when the government gives you free money. Tax breaks are quite different.

[Lonestar]

So Tax Breaks are when they don't take as much money from you in taxes, is what you are saying.

Sounds like free money to me.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Tax breaks! = subsidies

Subsidies are when the government gives you free money. Tax breaks are quite different.

It's the same damned thing. Just because you don't want to link tax breaks with subsidies because of whatever negative connotations you think subsidies have, doesn't mean that tax breaks aren't subsidies.

And oh, btw, a tax break IS the government giving you free money!

[DinoDoc]

I thought a tax break was a government letting you keep more of your money rather than taking it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Kuci, even Adam Smith wrote that works such as "roads" should be supported by the government, not the free market. I'm sure that utilities would also fall under his defination of what should be supported by the government, had such beasts existed in his time.

It's not the existance of the subsidy that's the problem; it's the hidden, unquantified nature that makes it bad.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Az
What are the estimates on people dying from air pollution on a per day basis in the US? even if you consider that power utilities are contributing a fraction of the air pollution, I think that the money that should be paid as reparation to the families is unnerving, and is a hidden subsidy by all society to these companies.

I suspect the vast majority of the air pollution that harms people comes from cars.