Quote from: James McMurrayDo you really want to risk having a Challenger explosion spray bits of toxic waste instead of school teacher? :eek:

That's just totally in fucking poor taste, and uncalled for.

Quote from: James J SkachWhile I appreciate your candor, I'm not sure it's right to make the assertion you have. In particular, the widespread use of fossil fuels was on it's march long before the government ever started with tax incentives.

Certainly. But it would not be as widespread as it is without subsidies. Places like Ghana would not have large power stations without government investment. Here in Australia we've seen how the level of service in telecommunications drops when ownership goes from public to private. If it were a matter of providing that service in the first place, some places here would never have got telephones; many don't yet have internet, and no private citizens in Australia have internationally-recognised broadband (more than 2Mbps), only companies and government.

Power stations, lines, the whole infrastructure - it costs billions. Private companies simply can't raise that amount of capital by themselves, they rely on public subsidies, government-guaranteed loans and so on.

Quote from: James J SkachAnd cheap?  I wish I could use you to convince people here who do nothing but complain about how expensive it is. Until I have more evidence, however, I'll let this one pass to you.

Try discussing petrol prices online. The cheapest place in the developed world for petrol is the USA, but they're the ones who complain the most about the price. Having worked in various restaurants, I can honestly say that the cheaper the food, the more the complaints - about price, quality, everything. No-one sends a $40 plate back to the kitchen; they often send $10 plates back.

I call it "cheap" when people on minimum full-time wage can afford it, provided they're prudent with their money. Electricity is "cheap" across most of the Western world, by that standard.

Quote from: James J SkachI hope you're not implying that roads are subsidies for power companies, are you?  

No. They are indirectly subsidies for energy companies like Shell, etc. Without roads, consumers would not have the means to consume fuel in their cars. But I didn't mention them as a subsidy for power companies, or energy companies - I mentioned them as an example of a large project which is almost never undertaken entirely by private funds, but almost entirely by public funds. If a private company won't spend $10 million on a stretch of road without public subsidy, they sure as shit won't spend $2 billion on a power station.

Quote from: James J SkachAre there joint ventures here? Yeah, that happens. But they tend to be neutral – that is, for a mall to be put it, they have to pay for a portion of the improvement required to keep traffic moving (new turn lanes, traffic light, etc.).

Ours are not neutral, but favour the corporations. For example, a highway was built in Sydney. The negotiations went something like this,

Govt: "We want to ease congestion on the roads, and build another road. So, we offer you $200 million to build the highway, and $10 million annually for forty years to maintain it."
Corp: "Not enough."
Govt: "Okay, $300 million and $15 million. But we can't afford to pay you that straight out."
Corp: "Well, we could collect tolls for the road."
Govt: "Okay, a few bucks for each car that uses the road? Fair enough."
Corp: "But then, if there's a toll road, and a free road, people will of course use the free road. Same if you put in a railway."
Govt: "Okay, we promise to close the surrounding roads, and not to build any railway parallel to your highway for forty years. Good enough?"
PUBLIC: "Oi! You're building the highway to ease congestion, but to afford the highway you have to promise to cause congestion?!"
Corp & Govt: "Who the fuck asked you?"
 

Quote from: James J SkachBut we can agree on one thing - subsidies are crap, whether for agricultural or oil.

I don't think subsidies are crap. I'm simply responding to the assertion that renewable energy isn't feasible without subsidies by saying, "well, fossil fuel gets subsidies, too." I believe in subsidising what we want to encourage, and not subsidising what we don't.

Quote from: James J SkachI know the argument made against yours. That it is better to still be at 2000 fossil fuel stations than at 3000.  I don't agree with it, but that's the argument I always see. However, I disagree with the idea that just because we have nuclear power, Zimbabwe and Iran get to as well. To try and create some sort of moral equivalence is abhorrent to me.

It's not a matter of moral equivalence. It's a matter of politics, and physics.

The politics is quite simply that if all across the Western world we replace our coal-fired stations with nuclear ones, then Iran and Zimbabwe are going to do that, too. Doesn't matter if it's immoral or whatever, it'll happen. As the developed world, we lead, they follow. That's the political reality.

As to physics, the argument is that if the West uses more nuclear, the world will have no greenhouse gas emissions. But of course that's rubbish, because if the West uses nuclear, then the developing world - supposing we can stop them using nuclear - will use coal, oil and gas. You say they can't have nukes? Fine. But they want to live better, which means consuming more energy. That energy has to come from somewhere. If we can't use renewables, how can they? That leaves nukes, and fossil-fuel.

Currently, the USA has 4% of the world's population and uses 25% of the world's energy, producing 25% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. If China and India want to live a lifestyle like the USA, with 40% the world's population they'll produce 250% of the world's emissions. So even if they don't go entirely nuclear, we have a problem.

So, "we'll stop greenhouse gas emissions if we use nuclear" only makes sense if the whole world uses nuclear. It's not about moral equivalence or any of that rubbish, it's a response to what people have been saying. It goes like this.

"Nuke power is free of greenhouse emissions, if everyone changes to that, no more greenhouse effect."
"It's not free of greenhouse emissions, and even if it were, everyone changing to it means China, India, Zimbabwe, etc. And if those guys don't change to it, then they'll build more fossil-fuel burning stations, so we just move the greenhouse gas problem from West to East. How is this an improvement?"

Okay, so we go nuclear, Zimbabwe doesn't. How does Zimbabwe get its power? Fossil fuels? But hang on, aren't we rejecting fossil fuels because of greenhouse gases? Renewables? Hang on, aren't people saying that's impossible, impractical, and too expensive? So how does Zimbabwe get power, then? Are they supposed to do without it? Try arguing that to Zimbabweans.

Greenhouse gases, and the finite resources of the Earth, combined with the need for energy, are a global problem. So they need global solutions - that is, solutions which will work for all countries, not just our nice happy rich ones.

Quote from: Dominus NoxThat's just totally in fucking poor taste, and uncalled for.

Pardon my smile...I think somebody said something amusing.

QuoteI hope you're not implying that roads are subsidies for power companies, are you? I mean, my word, the absurdity of that, from you, takes me a bit by surprise. Perhaps in Australia it’s different. Do you have public roads that were created solely for the power companies? That would piss me off, too. We tend not to do that here. Are there joint ventures here? Yeah, that happens. But they tend to be neutral – that is, for a mall to be put it, they have to pay for a portion of the improvement required to keep traffic moving (new turn lanes, traffic light, etc.).

In the town where I spent all of junior high and high school, the city built a new road, and entire new underpass by the main highway, for a Wal-Mart.  In another case, they completely redesigned and remapped a dozen city blocks for specifically to direct traffic to a new Fred Meyer.

In my present town, most of road and highway budgets go towards paving new streets for new luxury home developments, instead of being used to properly repair sidewalks and streets that in many cases have gone decades without any repair.  Whole neighborhoods with pulverized sidewalks, and in some cases, even sidestreets that have become impromptu dirt roads.

Public service subsidies go to shit way less important than a power plant all the time.  When the big business shows up and starts waving handfuls of cash under the city councilor's noses, shit tends to happen.

Well, we've reached our 4%/25% impasse again.  It took us a while to get there, but it always gets tossed in at some point.

I think I understand what you're trying to say, though I think we're miscommunicating on a couple of points.  Could be cultural. I appreciate your discussion.  I just think we're going to agree to disagree on a couple of things. Most actually.

J Arcane - I'd love to see the funding records for that interchange, as well as the tax revenues the town was able to reap from the Wal-Mart. Then we could add in all the money people who shopped there saved.  I'd bet that even if your town funded the entire interchange project, the folks in the town, particularly those who shopped at the Wal Mart, made money on the deal.

But that argument is for another thread.

Quote from: Dominus NoxThat's just totally in fucking poor taste, and uncalled for.

Perhaps, but it's a valid question. Until we've perfected space flight, launching toxic waste entails more risk than necessary for its reward.

Quote from: James J SkachWell, we've reached our 4%/25% impasse again.  It took us a while to get there, but it always gets tossed in at some point.

I think I understand what you're trying to say, though I think we're miscommunicating on a couple of points.  Could be cultural. I appreciate your discussion.  I just think we're going to agree to disagree on a couple of things. Most actually.

J Arcane - I'd love to see the funding records for that interchange, as well as the tax revenues the town was able to reap from the Wal-Mart. Then we could add in all the money people who shopped there saved.  I'd bet that even if your town funded the entire interchange project, the folks in the town, particularly those who shopped at the Wal Mart, made money on the deal.

But that argument is for another thread.

Said Wal-Mart, like most such projects in smaller towns, was given a tax waver for at least the next decade.  They aren't paying a goddamn thing.  And that's usually prety standard practice really, goes on all across the country, basic corporate welfare stuff really.  

You really are out of touch, you know that?  I admire your naivete in a way, but really, you are pretty well sold on an America that doesn't exist.

Quote from: J ArcaneSaid Wal-Mart, like most such projects in smaller towns, was given a tax waver for at least the next decade.  They aren't paying a goddamn thing.  And that's usually prety standard practice really, goes on all across the country, basic corporate welfare stuff really.  

You really are out of touch, you know that?  I admire your naivete in a way, but really, you are pretty well sold on an America that doesn't exist.

I'm out of touch?  How many people work at that Wal Mart? How many now have a job? How much are they paying in taxes that would not have existed if not for that job? What happens at the end of ten years - does Wal Mart pack up and leave?

Who is out of touch? Who is naive? Who is simply buying the arguments of class warfare because they make one feel good to be for the "little guy?"

Quote from: James J SkachI'm out of touch?  How many people work at that Wal Mart? How many now have a job? How much are they paying in taxes that would not have existed if not for that job? What happens at the end of ten years - does Wal Mart pack up and leave?

Who is out of touch? Who is naive? Who is simply buying the arguments of class warfare because they make one feel good to be for the "little guy?"

You asked this:

QuoteDo you have public roads that were created solely for the power companies?

I answered that it's quite common in the US for the public to subsidize roads for all kinds of things.

Now you're bringing up a bunch of unrelated shit that doesn't have anytihng to do with your question, or the subject of the thread.

But, since you asked, the city or the county didn't collect one red cent from the new batch of Wal-Mart employees, because neither the city or the county have a local income tax, and there is no sales tax on any level in the state of Oregon.  

But I'm sure the councilman got himself a sweet new Ford Explorer.  For his next campaign of course.

Quote from: J ArcaneI answered that it's quite common in the US for the public to subsidize roads for all kinds of things.

OK, so you asserted that it's quite common.  I'm asserting it's not as common as you think. More accurately, I'm arguing that it's more common that other factors neutralize the public subsidy.

Quote from: J ArcaneNow you're bringing up a bunch of unrelated shit that doesn't have anytihng to do with your question, or the subject of the thread.

Well, we're all over the map in these threads. perhaps we should just have a thread to argue all policies. I'll cop to not being relevant directly to Nuclear Power.  However, my questions are directly to your assertion. So I think we're both way off topic here.

Quote from: J ArcaneBut, since you asked, the city or the county didn't collect one red cent from the new batch of Wal-Mart employees, because neither the city or the county have a local income tax, and there is no sales tax on any level in the state of Oregon.  

But I'm sure the councilman got himself a sweet new Ford Explorer.  For his next campaign of course.

And I would being voting that person out of office.  It's a horrible return. Hold him or her reponsible and can his (or her) ass. The fact that you and I agree it's a horrible deal, the two of us from (it seems) very different areas of the political spectrum, should be an indicator of how common it occurs without neutralizing factors.

Quote from: James J SkachWell, we've reached our 4%/25% impasse again.  It took us a while to get there, but it always gets tossed in at some point.

It's relevant, as I said, because we're discussing global greenhouse gas emissions, and global energy policy.

The entire USA could switch off all its electricity, and turn off all its cars tomorrow, and it'd be a 25% decline in greenhouse gas emissions globally. But in about seven years, China, India and Africa would have made up for it, and we'd be back where we started.

So if you want to talk about whether nuclear power is good for the world, you have to talk about whether it's good for those developing countries, too. And if you say, "it's not good for them, only for us," then you have to answer: where should China, India and Africa get their electricity from?

Do they get it from fossil fuels? Then we in the West may as well not bother with nuclear power, because developing world emissions will easily exceed our savings.

Do they get it from renewable energy? Then why can't we? What is different between a car factory in China, and a car factory in Australia, that theirs can be powered by solar panels (or whatever), and ours can't?

Or do you want to say to the developing world, "you can't have nuclear, you can't have fossil fuels, and renewable energy doesn't work"? They will reply, "so how do we power ourselves?" What's your answer?

Greenhouse gas emissions, and the development of nuclear power industries in any country have global consequences. CO2 and methane don't stop at the border, and neither do nuclear bombs.

So, the USA is wonderful and right and true and good, and the rest of the world should do as you say. Rightyo, what are you going to tell the developing world to do? They want more energy - how should they get it?

Of course none of this affects my main point, which is: why use a finite resource when you have an infinite one available?

I havn't read the entire thread... I'm under the weather...

I'm for.

And yes nuke waste issues are blown out of proportion. And we get most of our power generation from coal. not oil. and we get about ~20% of our power from Nuke. And we havn't built a new one in quite some time.

NEI has some good info on it.

Plus the deaths from coal mining and coal burning pollution outstrip the deaths from Nuke plants... at least in the US. Russia may be another story.

Sorry if I'm being redundant, wanted to get my vote and two cents in.

EDIT: One of the founders of Green peace advocats for nuclear

ultimately I'm really for fusion or good solar power, hoping that Ray Kursweil is correct and that nano-tech fabrication processes will lead to a golden age of solar power.

Quote from: TonyLBPersonally, I think Tokamak fusion reactors will be workable in our lifetimes, so I do think that there is a next step in the ladder.  Whether fusion will generate enough energy that we'll actually bother with whatever supercollider nonsense is necessary to render nuclear waste inert (is this even possible?) I don't really know, but it certainly looks like we've got at least one or two more steps of "new technology saves us from the crisis of the last technology" left to figure it out.

Tokamak coils will need to be replaced every few months as they will be irradiated, and have to be disposed of in a nuclear dump. However it would be wonderful to get a functional fusion reactor that gives more power out than is pumped into it.

Nox exactly where did you get the 600 year number from?

I'm for it, too.

But only until we can replace it with something really bitchin', like antimatter, or one of those cool geothermal tap things.