Want to expand this? Are you saying that the government would necessarily have to guarantee a private nuclear energy company a loan in order for it to survive? If so, then by all means, let the nuclear power industry die. Just let it die on its own merits, and not on the basis of the beliefs held by you or by the wise politicians in DC.
I specifically framed it as regulation vs non-regulation is not the issue therefore removing it from the debate. I know people in this forum will twist anything you say and make it like you are for regulation or are some sort Socialist. So I went out of my way in my first post to point out that the typically anarchist response here is that even without regulation the same safety protocols would be implemented since the operators would want to protect thier investment. (I posted that as the anarchist response, it is not belief since clearly this industry has failed where regulations do and do not exist).
Yes, you mentioned the "ancap" response (which is not an "ancap" response, because it does not rely on anarchy). Then you said: "If the facility does not invest in safety then we all ultimately have to pay the price so again we are back to taxpayers footing the bill since they are still uninsurable."
If your answer to this is not government regulation, then I don't know what on earth you were referring to.
Comparing a nuclear accident to the BP oil spill is just silly. So therefore based on your response I have to ask what your connection is to this industry that you are willing to sacrifice the fruits of your labor, health and that of your family for generations to come? Self or family employed by them? Are you getting your daily dose of propaganda from a college professor and is this the career you are seeking?
I'm a graduate student in economics who believes that free markets should be able to sort this out just like it sorts out all kinds of issues. For full disclosure, I worked in a nuclear-related position for a year. I quit and went back to school, because the red tape was unbearable. 90% of the taxpayer dollars that are being squandered in the industry are government contract and compliance related.
It is bad investment taking into account containment deterioration, waste management, maintaining the facility, closing the facility and security. For example a typically nuclear power plant closing and clean up could take up 15-20 years costing millions of dollars. If the company is not around and no one is willing to step up to the plate the taxpayers will be forced to do so. There is no way around this since there are much cheaper things an energy company can invest in.
It's a bad investment as far as
you are concerned. Fine. There were people who doubted the viabilities of automobiles and personal computers when they were first introduced into the market. Not everyone is going to have the same view on what a "good" investment is as
you do. If they did, we would just be robots, and there would be no need for a market at all - we'd just magically arrive at the proper solution.
I don't claim to know if nuclear energy would work in a free market, and quite frankly I don't care. I do know that we can't say "Nuclear power should be banned" or "Nuclear power should be heavily regulated" without conceding that pretty much any other market can be subject to the government's whims in the same fashion. So let the market decide.
