"F. George McDuffee" wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:10:55 -0500, jim
wrote:

SNIP
You want the taxpayers to finance nuclear energy?
Private investors won't put their money down
SNIP

The unstated assumption is that this is the "free market" at
work {that the "free market" is always right...} and the
"investors" are carefully calculating risk v reward.
Because of the excessively high concentrations of
wealth/income, disfunctional banks with toxic assets,
financial/credit distortions because of the "carry trade,"
and the fact that many of the potential players have vested
interests in existing technology such as coal, and the
status quo, this does not appear to be the case.

There is no doubt that it is not a free market,
but that doesn't mean market forces have disappeared.

The lesson that wall street learned from 3 mile island incident is that
the operators of a nuclear plant can turn a 1 billion dollar investment
into a 2 billion dollar liability in just a couple hours.




On the other hand attempts by government to operate anything
on a continuing basis from the post office to Freddy and
Fanny do not inspire much confidence either. However, the
early years of some governmental authorities, such as the
TVA [Tennessee Valley Authority[, GRDA [Grand River Dam
Authority in Oklahoma], and the early decades of
Freddy/Fanny do appear to have resulted in genuine economic
advances for the bulk of the American people.

The only way Nuclear power plants will be built in the US is if the
government is the party responsible to clean up the type of mess that is
now happening in Japan. But that sort of arrangement isn't going to sit
well with the majority of the US public.

If the arrangement is that as long as things go well
the investors take their profits, but as soon as things go wrong
the investors walk away and the govt. steps in
and spends the billions to clean up and contain the mess
then under that arrangement yes many power plants would be built.

But if the investors are held responsible for
cleaning up any mess thaty may occur
they simply aren't going to build in the first place.



One possible alternative is the creation of limited lifespan
authorities or government sponsored enterprises [GSEs] to
construct and operate a number of full scale pilot plants
for coal liquifacation/synthetic petroleum, thorium molten
salt fission reactors, and fissile material/rare earth
recovery operations from [currently] industrial wastes such
as fly ash, etc. to demonstrate the economic viability and
safety of these processes.

Sure but that is socialism.
You want the government competing directly against
the oil companies
and immediately half the population of the US
gets the image in their head that the oil companies
are wounded baby birds that big bad government
has knocked from their warm cozy nests.



IMNSHO a very useful partnership
with a thorium reactor authority would be with a proven
record of successful operation of their municipal power
system such as Los Angeles, with one or more of the reactors
buried deeply underground for safety, but within the city
limits, minimizing transmission losses and costs. Another
possibility for coastal cities such as Los Angeles and New
York with the availability of cheap nuclear power is
desalinization of sea water, eliminating an enormous
continuing municipal/state expense to impound and transport
potable water long distances. As soon as profits begin to
be generated, there will be a huge demand to privatize and
expand these operations.

You are beginning to sound like Gadaffi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Manmade_River



When pigs fly...


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).