Germany to permanently close all its nuclear power plants

[kahless]

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.

The companies received loan guarantees. Taxpayer dollars. Simple as that. If the private industry cannot build it then it should not be built. If the private industry cannot support it infinitely, which it cannot, then it should not be built. I will not submit myself or my family for generations to come to support technology you happen to be fond of at the moment.

The nuclear power supporters are just as hypocritical as the anti-war Democrats. Anti-war, but wait unless it is Obama's war. In this case, we have some faction of Libertarians, Anarchists and Conservatives saying we are true to our beliefs except for nuclear power where perpetual subservience seems to be a goal.

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.

Here is my full quote from above where my point was to give both sides of the debate:

"Ancaps would say the plants would still be built with safety in mind to protect their investment. Thus it makes no difference if regulations were eliminated since the plants would still invest to implement the safety protocols".

At the same time people say regulation is too expensive which defeats the argument that without regulation the plant operators would implement the same protocols to protect their investment. So like I said with or without regulation it does not matter. If it is too expensive with regulation then it is too expensive without regulation since the same protocols would be put into place regardless. I personally believe they would not put the protocols in place based on history of the industry not implementing protocols where regulations do and do not exist.

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'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.

Not as far as I am concerned, history proves it is a bad investment and currently without government we would not be building new plants. So here we have people that are worried about this country moving closer to Socialism but have no problem with nuclear socialism.

Automobile and personal computers do not force me and my family for generations to come to be tax subservient to them or face the risk of radioactive contamination.

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.

I really cannot think of anything I want the government involved in other than environmental issues such as this where the nuclear power industry has proven time and time again they ignore regulations and safety protocols where they do or do not exist.

Perhaps a better solution some have suggested here is that CEO's and board of directors be held criminally accountable for accidents instead. However this does not help us from not being tax subservient to maintain facilities for generations to come.

 

[enjerth]

If it weren't for the government involvement, we wouldn't be using the nuclear technology we see today. Thorium has been far superior as a fuel, in safety, cost, and toxic storage, than uranium fuel. Thorium technology has been around for half a century, but it's not in favor because we're always after the weapons-grade nuclear byproduct of a uranium reactor, which thorium would not provide.

Nuclear energy could be dirt cheap and incredibly safe.

 

[acptulsa]

Well, it suits me. I've had GE and WX shorted for a little while now.

 

[steve005]

atomic power=FAIL

 

[SkarnkaiLW]

I have to agree with enjerth. Sadly, the State has been involved with the nuclear industry to the hilt, and all it has really managed to do is bring the worst part of the technology closer to us in time. That is nuclear weapons. A freed market would most likely never have put so much energy into such a destructive technology, but the State draws its health from War.
On uranium cycle nuclear fission, the reason loan guarantees are necessary sadly is due to the sheer political nature of power plant development in the US. Which is why we haven't broke ground on any new ones since the 70s, and the ones we have operating should probably have been replaced by now. LFTR would be a significant step in the right direction, but the alphabet soup of agencies involved with nuclear power have no interest in the technology at this point, sadly, as they are working on Gen IV reactor designs, still with the uranium cycle.

 

[doodle]

Getting nervous about nuclear power

The announcement is bound to send further shock waves through an industry grappling with the consequences of the Fukushima disaster. It will certainly cause casualties – both directly as some governments back away from their nuclear ambitions, and indirectly, by forcing the industry to improve its safety technology, further raising the already daunting price of new reactors.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...for-fossil-fuels/article2040647/?from=2040659

 

[doodle]

I don't really trust nuclear power anymore.

Why?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Last week EU had announced major stress tests for 143 nuclear reactors in Europe.

Stress test? Are these people crazy? That's what blew up Chernobyl. If the design of the plant and storage of the radioactive materials is unstable, flawed and not able to be easily (and truly) shutdown, they need to do what Germany is doing and eliminate them ASAP. Stress testing of a known faulty design is foolish. New and safer designs are what is needed.

 

[doodle]

In their defense, these seem mostly theoratical tests and do not include some of the the more stringent testing criteria. Also if a region did not recently have a strong quake, it is assumed same trend will continue. There are some gaps in these tests.

 

[steve005]

Why?

hmm.. maybe the fact that it effects people on the other side of the earth if you mess up, also nowhere to store the waste. I'm not surprised you don't know though because its a complete media blackout. there is more radiaton coming over here now than the in the first 60 days, and it will be coming for next 12 months, its a good time to move to south america, thats where I'm going

 

[doodle]

Ok thanks, that's a good explanation.. and bit troubling.

 

[Krugerrand]

This is the problem when you can cause damages that far exceed your ability to pay. Bankruptcy doesn't get the people that are owed money what they're owed. It gets them a percentage of it. And when you're talking about nuclear fallout damages, you're probably looking at recouping somewhere between $0.00 and $0.00001 on every dollar owed.

 

[doodle]

Good point. Another member has noted earlier that AIG was insurer for Japan plants.

 

[doodle]

Irreversible:


* UNE 3, 2011, 11:14 A.M. ET

Merkel:German Nuclear Exit Gradual; 2022 Irreversible End-date

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110603-707791.html

 

[BuddyRey]

I don't believe government should have any authority to shut down nuclear plants, but that doesn't mean nuclear power is an optimally safe or desirable alternative to other energy sources either. Do what you want with it if you can keep potential harm contained and geographically isolated, but if it destroys lives, health, or property, it does violate the Non-Aggression Principle.

 

[doodle]

I don't believe government should have any authority to shut down nuclear plants, but that doesn't mean nuclear power is an optimally safe or desirable alternative to other energy sources either. Do what you want with it if you can keep potential harm contained and geographically isolated, but if it destroys lives, health, or property, it does violate the Non-Aggression Principle.

Seems like the GE made plants in Japan did violate the "Non-Aggression Principle".