Posted on 05/19/2008 9:54:02 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
... if the problem doesn’t really exist, then the free market will make sure it’s covered with exactly zero dollars...
This will only work with politicians who campaign and deliver on ousting government regulation, and here's why: The problem doesn't exist.
There's no sniffing out for the free market to do -- the "problem" is manufactured by all kinds of things, but it IS manufactured. And given a venue, entrepreneurs will find a way to tap the market it creates. Just like all the smart business folks who are suddenly finding every "green" attribute to their product as possible and trumpeting it to the high heavens, creating a "green" product boom that IS being embraced by "the market" because the "market" has bought into the manufactured problem.
Free markets work every time, absolutely agreed. Public fads created as a result of government regulation and mandate that create market niches met by entrepreneurs -- that's different than a free market.
For the free market machine to succeed in sniffing out and exposing or solving a manufactured "problem" where the benefits of addressing it are manufactured by government regulation ... well, that's a false market and will only perpetuate bondage.
No different than Obama. I'm sure Obama supports this.
Doesn't he?
We can't afford it.
Probably the same way we staff our current coal plants ... with trained people. Since most of that 700 number comes from replacing coal plants, those coal plants are one place to look for folks who know how to behave around high pressure steam pipes, turbines and generators.
The staffing levels are lower at a nuke plant than a coal plant, as you have lost all that effort of getting coal in, and getting the ash and other collected emissions out that is a continous process at a coal plant, and only happens on a months long cycle (18?) and at far lower volumes at a nuke plant.
As for nuclear engineers, we get them the same place we get any engineer - pay enough, and they will come. It takes about as long to build a nuke plant as to train an engineer (order of magnitude), so just start a scholarship program.
Here’s an interesting google search for you to do.
“Illegal aliens in Nuke plants”
And yes, the fact that we can’t build an oil refinery says all we need to know about the likelyhood of 700 new nuke plants being built.
Nuclear generation of electricity will free up massive quantitees of natural gas for use as a clean burning efficient motor fuel using technology in wide use today. The savings in oil consumption comes with the widespread use of natural gas for vehicles. No need for any exotic technology with hydrogen and fuel cells and so on.
It's simple: Nuclear replaces NG, which replaces oil. And the Ay-rabs can go pound sand.
Spending $4 trillion over 20 years to build nuke plants will do neither.
Yes, and then there's also the time value of money. Even if the price tag is $4 trillion, that's going to get spread out over the course of 20 some odd years.
This is the only way I would ever, ever, want us to be like the French.
Yeah I agree. Too bad that's not what McCain or this article said. You have to look at why they are building the nuclear plants:
They are building the nuclear plants to prevent global warming, which not only does nothing to prevent global warming(unless you believe in it), but it lacks the ability to provide our nation with the energy we need to thrive.
Now, if they were building the plants to go along with fossil fuels, wind, and solar technology then we'd be in a position to be VERY prosperous. But to prohibit drilling in over 85% of our country, and banning coal burning plants, what you end up with is a disaster that will be met with energy rationing, and high energy costs that would raise the price on anything that needs to be shipped.
If he is trying to convince me this is a _bad_ thing, he failed miserably.
I agree with McCain on this: Full Speed Ahead - Let’s get those 700 plants on line starting now. Build one per month? No way! Let’s make it 3 or 4 or 5 a month!
The biggest producers of uranium are Australia and Canada. Last time I checked, we're pretty friendly with them. As to dwindling supplies, that problem goes away if we reprocess the spent fuel. There's enough energy in existing "spent" fueld to power us for a long time.
A significant fraction of fuel going into France's reactors was already "spent" somewhere else in Europe.
I frankly don't care why, just so long as they are built.
Now, if they were building the plants to go along with fossil fuels, wind, and solar technology then we'd be in a position to be VERY prosperous.
That's exactly what would happen if McCain's plan went into effect. Even if he wanted to completely get rid of fossil fuel use, it's not going to happen, at least not for a very long time. It's simply not politically feasible.
At most what we'll see happening is a gradual phasing out of fossil fuels for electricity generation as nuke plants start coming on line over the next 20 years. And frankly, I think that's a good thing.
Coal plants, even so-called "clean" coal, are horrible even if you ignore global warming. Given nuclear technology, there's no reason we can't phase out coal use over a 20 year period.
Natural gas doesn't pollute very much, but too much of the world's supply is concentrated in unfriendly and or unstable countries (Russia and the Mid-East). At most we should be using a small amount of Nat gas for auxilliary power, and that's it.
While I don't oppose more domestic drilling for crude oil, this is not the panacea you think it is. Even if the most optimistic estimates of domestic reserves prove true, they are miniscule compared to total global supply. Hence they will barely dent the price of oil. So sure, expand domestic drilling, but it isn't going help very much. Unless we don't drastically cut down on our oil consumption, we're still going to be enriching our enemies.
Hydro and geothermal should be used where possible, but it's not feasible in most places.
Wind and solar are fine as auxilliary power, and should be used for this purpose where feasible, but you can't realistically expect them to be provide baseload power.
That pretty much leaves nuclear as the bulk of the solution (with a little help from the renuables). High reliance on fossil fuels is a bad idea, even if you don't believe in global warming, so why not graudally wean ourselves off of them?
There seems to be a lot more activity going on in this respect than there has been for many, many years.
I never said drilling for oil is the goal............... our domestic goal should be natural gas!!! Do a little research and you’ll find that natural gas is our best option for transportation............ not electricity.
I have a plan... We could let private companies put up the money and build the plants. Then, the companies could sell the power they produce from the plants to the public to make back their investment. If they run them well, they can even make a little profit for themselves.
I say we go for it!
I disagree. We have about 3% of global natural gas supply. As they do with oil, Mid East and Russia dominate this market, and no amount of domestic exploration is going to change that.
Dependence on any energy source dominated by Russia and the Middle East is a bad idea.
I'm not quite sure where you are coming from on this. I only replied that it would be possible to staff the plants.
That fact that Homeland Security is a bad joke is neither here nor there, as it applies to any power plant, or chemical plant, etc., where there are things you'd rather not have an al-Queda type standing near.
And the oil refinery thing is a bit of a red herring. It's easier to expand existing oil refineries than to expand existing power plants. Even without new refineries, the refining capacity has been growing to meet our needs.
I stand by my statement. We can staff the new plants. The question is that of political will, and there is precious little of that in either party at the moment for doing the responsible thing, and allowing more nukes to be built.
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.