Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (158388)	2/22/2005 4:47:12 PM
From: Sam Citron	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

From a purely economic viewpoint, it makes no sense to develop alternative energy sources, especially a difficult and expensive alternative like nuclear power. I strongly disagree, Jacob. Nuclear energy is cheap compared to alternative sources, especially if you don't have to worry about spent fuel storage, now that Russia is offering Iran this. If you do a shadow-pricing analysis of conventional fossil fuels for electric generation, the nuclear alternative is compelling, which is why uranium prices are going through the roof. In such an analysis, you must consider the scarcity of competing fuels and world market prices, not merely the local surplus. Why burn local gas and oil for electricity locally if these fuels can be sold to India and China at lucrative prices?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (158388)	2/23/2005 6:48:54 AM
From: Noel de Leon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"Iranian oil isn't going to run out for a long time." There are a number of studies which indicate that oil production will peak soon(if not already) and that an oil crisis will set in around 2030-2040. That alone is reason enough to consider nuclear power. Couple that with projected increases in oil consumption in China and India during the next 20 years(around 60%). The question of decommissioning costs(highly undervalued in the 50s, 60s, and 70s but less so today) become less relevant if oil prices go through the roof. Bringing new oil fields on-line takes around 10 years and no new mega oil fields have been found during the past several decades. Those oil fields that are found are smaller and smaller. The Canadian Sands projects require new technology to get the oil but like all non-renewable energy sources will run out at some point. As to your remarks about an "Islamic Bomb", I hope that you are aware of the inflammatory nature of the remark. Would you call the Israeli bomb a Jewish Bomb? Or the Chinese bomb a Confucian Bomb? or the US, British and French bombs Christian bombs? Not forgetting the Russian bomb(a Russian Orthodox Bomb?).

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (158388)	2/23/2005 6:56:37 AM
From: kumar	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<The Pakistani nuclear weapon program was really a collaborative effort. The Pakistanis freely exchanged material, tools, plans, with N. Korea, Iran, Libya, and others. The Saudis largely funded the effort. It should be thought of as an Islamic Bomb, not a Pakistani Bomb.> I was born in India, and am no longer an Indian citizen. I do not think of India having nuke caps as a "Hindu Bomb". Just as I dont consider the "western world" having these things as "Christian Bombs". Please re-consider your comment.