Posted on 05/10/2008 6:41:16 AM PDT by kellynla
It makes sense from an investor's point of view.
Let the government have an equity and controlling interest in the these developments. Then when they are sued and shutdown the investor is the government.
I invest in the Oil Drillers and Services Sector. When the government wants oil they will have to pay us up front to get it out.
I see that our own Republican Representative did not sign. I just sent her an email. You may want to do the same.
You are wrong, Pal! The private sector would easily invest in nuclear IF they could be assured the regulations don't become a moving target and a President a Hussein Obama will not shut it down. The private sector is having a very hard time now with its heaving investments in coal and gas-fired plants when the Global Warming Nuts are trying to shut it down.
Try this one on -— If US politicians had the balls of the French (who are 90% nuclear), we would have strong on-going energy programs, like nuclear power!!
So much for one of my senators.
Senator Dole comments.
October 27th, 2003 - Since 1993, a moratorium enacted by former President George H.W. Bush has prevented drilling along the Outer Continental Shelf and provided a much-needed boost to our coastal economy. Each year thousands of families flock to North Carolina beaches to soak in some sun, dip in the cool waters and spend time with family and friends. Each visit brings welcomed tourism dollars and jobs that are so vital to our coastal communities.
But today, the coastal environment and the tourism industry of our state, as well as all other coastal states, are under attack by a provision in the energy bill that could lead to new offshore oil drilling. The provision would require the Interior Department to conduct an inventory of all oil and natural gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf in moratoria areas, the area of land just off the coast and in the Gulf of Mexico.
The energy bill passed by the Senate did not include a provision to lift the moratorium, and members of the House of Representatives defeated a similar provision in their version of the energy bill. When Senate and House conferees began to negotiate a joint version of the bill, however, the offshore inventory provision emerged.
This provision is simply unacceptable for those living in, working in and visiting our coastal communities. Tourism plays a vital role in the North Carolina economy, and it remains a strong industry despite difficult economic times. Offshore drilling would drastically impact the economy and the livelihood of our coastal communities.
Advocates for this inventory label it as information gathering—but we already know what resources are located along our coasts from information gathered by the Department of the Interior. Why then, especially during tough economic times, should our state be asked to bear the risk of exploration for resources that are under moratoria and not even accessible for development?
The physical price of this risk—polluted beaches, disrupted marine ecosystems, lost tourism—speaks to the heart of the issue. The inventory provision in the energy bill is a grave departure from the historical protection of these areas. I am concerned that this provision hints to a backsliding from that protection by allowing intrusive activities into moratoria areas, through a study that is not needed. The only logical explanation for the inventory would be for future exploration activity and drilling.
There is no doubt that now, more than ever, we must work to end our dependence on foreign oil sources. But we cannot do so by ignoring the wishes of the coastal communities that oppose drilling. Our local people, not the federal government, should decide what is best for their areas.
“The Republicans should make a big deal of this.They need to stand on the capitol steps and demand action. Every Republican going on the TV circuits tomorrow should steer every answer to this bill. Make the Dems either sign on to this bill or very publicly reject it.”
and every day until the bill is signed, sealed & delivered by GWB!
ya see, that would be LEADERSHIP! Something that has been lacking for not just the last seven years but for the last three decades! We have been led around by the nose by OPEC since the 70’s oil embargo while countries like Brazil & France have been getting energy independent!
I don't know you and thus am not your pal.
The private sector would easily invest in nuclear IF they could be assured the regulations don't become a moving target and a President a Hussein Obama will not shut it down.
You are aware that nuclear plants are operating now in the US and have been for decades.
If US politicians had the balls of the French (who are 90% nuclear), we would have strong on-going energy programs, like nuclear power!!
Aren't the French socialist?
Investors like you remind me of teenagers. They like having the security parents provide and whine about the rules - in other words, they like the benefits and hate the constraints/responsibilities.
Grow up!
“You are aware that nuclear plants are operating now in the US and have been for decades.”
-— Are you aware that no NEW nuclear plant has gone on line in the US in ~ 30 years!
“Aren’t the French socialist?”
-— Yep, the French are socialists; yet, they have proceeded with a strong nuclear program, such they are 90% nuclear! Unlike the US ‘socialists’ who are wussies!
“Investors like you remind me of teenagers. They like having the security parents provide and whine about the rules - in other words, they like the benefits and hate the constraints/responsibilities.”
-— Go look in the mirror!
“Grow up!”
Let’s make a deal, I’ll grow up; you get your sh!t together!
California could allow offshore oil development and possibly reduce its deficit.
Are you suggesting the reason the private sector doesn't invest in new plant construction without tax payer money and guarantees is that for the last 30 years its been predicting "President Hussein Obama" who would come along and shut them down?
Yep, the French are socialists; yet, they have proceeded with a strong nuclear program, such they are 90% nuclear! Unlike the US ‘socialists’ who are wussies!
The French have proceeded with nuclear power precisely because they are socialists. High construction costs and a risk adverse private sector make nuclear energy more suited to a socialist system. It is the private sector that are wussies.
Let’s make a deal, I’ll grow up; you get your sh!t together!
What does your growing up have to do with me getting my sh!t together?
Having worked in the nuclear industry for ~ 20 years and having participated in the design of 15 of the current 103 nuclear power plant, I have yet to see significant government subsidies for nuk plants. It is the US government's REGULATION not its subsidies that is the problem.
The socialist French government led the nuclear industry forward while the US government impeded nuclear development in the US. The US government totally controls the supply and price of enriched uranium and all the unpredictable regulation. After the Three Mile Island incident, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission basically shut donw the industry. No new plant since 1979 has been ordered. The private sector is afraid to invest in nuclear because of the uncertainty of the US government regulation and the rising construction costs in general.
The US government loves to subsidize ethanol for fuel, but not the nuclear industry.
The farm lobby spends perfectly good money for those subsidies and the nuclear industry is catching on.
Nuclear industry perks in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 were spotlighted when President Bush signed the bill at Sandia National Lab in Domenci's home state of New Mexico. With his signature, billions in federal assistance flowed from Bush’s pen into the nuclear “renaissance,” including:
* $3 billion in research subsidies.
* More than $3 billion in construction subsidies for new nuclear power plants.
* Nearly $6 billion in operating tax credits.
* More than $1 billion in subsidies to decommission old plants.
* A 20-year extension of liability caps for accidents at nuclear plants.
* Federal loan guarantees for the construction of new power plants.
A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon we're talking about real money.
Construction of California's Diablo Canyon plant was estimated at $320 million, but ended up costing $5 billion over the original estimate and was 13 years late in completion (1985), so perhaps government subsides compared to costs are modest after all. (I hope Diablo Canyon wasn't one of your projects)
You obviously don't the difference between “Government” and “Investor Owned Utilities”, IOU. Essentially all of the 103 current operated commercial nuclear power plants were developed and built by IOU’s. The “Government” had very little to do with them, other than delay construction vis via escalating regulation. Your Utility, Pacific Gas & Electric Company pretty much fuc$ed up Diablo Canyon all by themselves. And, no I did not work on Diablo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.