Re: [Futurework] RE: The Solar Economy

[William B Ward]

Harry,   It seems you missed the most important point that Keith made:           but it would still need vast government subsidies because private investors can never afford         to cover the costs of cleaning up afterwards.   My youngest son became a Nuke in the Navy. When he went in, he was very pro nuclear [nucular as W says]. I sent him piles of articles. He now feels the same way I do about the horrors of nuclear power and the fact that it has been under the control of fanat     On Fri, 01 Jan 1999 17:40:14 -0800 Harry Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Keith, > > When I was involved with nuclear I ran into an interesting > comparison in > Chicago. They used coal, oil, and nuclear power plants. The engineer > in > charge made the point that of the three nuclear provided the > cheapest > power, and also had the least downtime. > > He did point out that had he been able to use local "dirty" coal, > ten coal > would have been cheapest. Bringing "clean" coal in from the West > pushed > coal power above nuclear. > > Two political problems have dogged nuclear. First, keeping a $5 > billion > plant from operating while 2-3 years of court antics take place is > no way > to run a business. The plant is already heavily in debt when it > finally > starts operating. > > Secondly, if they had been able to drop their spent fuel rods in the > ocean > trenches instead of keeping them on site - the present expensive and > risky > situation would never have developed. > > Also, the new nukes are apparently efficient and very safe. You > didn't > believe they could be run with the coolant off, but I've seen it > happen. > They don't even need containment shelters. To me, they seem to be > the key. > Environmentalists are perhaps in a state of shock - these horrible > things > don't even emit that well-known plant food - CO2. > > Privatization in Britain demonstrated that the conservatives had no > firm > philosophy. This included Thatcher, who did some good things but > inevitably > began to guess at what to do in the absence of a solid understanding > of the > free market. In any event, I suppose had she tried to do something > significant, she would have been stopped. Meantime, the idea of > privatizing > monopolies is beyond belief. > > Harry > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Keith wrote: > > >At 10:33 22/12/02 -0600, Bruce Leier wrote: > ><<<< > >Harry, > >I do not know of any energy technology that did not get its start > and/or a > >big boost through subsidies of some kind.  Oil certainly did.  And > nuclear > >really did, too.  Do you say those subsidies were "bad"?  Or is it > only new > >subsidies that are "bad"?  What has changed other than  who are the > >economic royalists?  WWHGsay? > > >>>> > > > >Oil certainly did not get a start through government subsidies. In > the > >modern era, it began with a group of private investors in late 1854 > who > >engaged a brilliant Yale chemist, Prof Silliman, to look into the > >properties of the black stuff which oozed out of the ground in many > places. > >Once Silliman's report was written, the group raised the money and > the > >first oil company was founded -- the Pennsylvania Rock Oil Company. > All > >without a cent of government subsidy. > > > >The nuclear industry has certainly required vast government > subsidies > >because it has been a hopelessly uneconomic proposition from the > start. In > >terms of ongoing costs it may, in fact, become economic in a decade > or two > >for a brief period as oil and gas prices start to rise but it would > still > >need vast government subsidies because private investors can never > afford > >to cover the costs of cleaning up afterwards. The privatised > nuclear > >industry in the UK, launched without having to pay a penny towards > its > >original development costs, has recently gone bankrupt for the > second time. > >And it will continue likewise as long as it operates. Only second > and > >third-rate chemists and engineers commit themselves to a career in > the > >nuclear energy industry. > > > >Keith Hudson > > > ****************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga  CA  91042 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > ******************************* > >