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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Carragher who wrote (78365)	4/26/2008 11:43:26 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

Re: link to -> In a last ditch effort, the declining nuclear industry has seized on the public’s legitimate concerns about climate change That diatribe is a bunch of false assumptions masquerading as "facts." Start with the opening paragraph, part of which I copied above. Then reflect on the fact that, for good or evil, the nuclear industry is doing the best it's done in decades. I've had conversations with people who were involved in the post mortems at 3 mile island and the more worrisome but less well known browns ferry incident. Nuclear power plants are complex and dangerous and if enough of them are built and operated over a period of many decades there will eventually be a serious accident that kills a bunch of people. But every other alternative is much more certain to kill far more people - the notion that windmills, etc. will supply the world's energy demands (which ultimately translates into food for children) is criminally naive. Coal plants spew so much waste through mining, transportation, and burning, that their emissions of radioactive materials dwarf what is released from nuclear plants - not to mention all the other toxic and greenhouse emissions. Ultimately, solar may show a lot more promise than it does now, but meanwhile we need to either get clean energy from a proven source (nukes) or agree to condemn Billions of innocent children to starvation. We need it yesterday, not someday. And it's criminally naive to run around saying that reusing your grocery bags and combing a few shopping trips is a sufficient solution. Too many stupid people fall for that crap and the final result is children's deaths. I'm sorry if that seems melodramatic, but it's just true. It's just arithmetic, it's just like the housing bubble, and it's not complicated - anyone who will take a few minutes to add up the numbers can see it but many people refuse to do so or listen if someone else tries to show them. They just sit there covering their ears with their hands shouting "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA." Sorry for the rant but it's been a very long week at work and I'm just tired of laziness, prejudice, and stupidity masquerading as analysis. We're running out of oil and gas fast, we don't yet have a long term solution (but there are some good possibilities), we do have a short term solution. It's a real shame that the short term solution has so many serious drawbacks, and that it has a long lead time - but it's what we've got and we need to start now. A big carbon tax sure would help reduce energy consumption, but who's been willing to promote that? And it's not nearly enough, it will just make people stop making some of their most stupid decisions - and reward those who are concientious.

To: John Carragher who wrote (78365)	4/26/2008 12:51:42 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

Chevron discovered and produced sources of uranium ore but decided against further participation in that industry due to liability and economics - the two being interlinked. It was Chevron's analysis that nuclear energy as designed was not economic when the costs of waste disposal were included. Firms such as Westinghouse which claim nuclear is a low-cost fuel do not include disposal costs in their calculations - and were protected by liability waivers, which in Chevron's estimation could later be removed as easily as they were put into place. As a consequence participating further downstream in the business than supplying uranium ore would be accompanied by a massive and unavoidable tail of liability. If the nuclear energy business were actually profitable, this would not be a problem as the liability would have been exceeded by the profits. Because nuclear energy as designed is extremely uneconomic, the tail of liability would threaten the company's existence. As a result, participation in the industry was unacceptable and denied by the Board. .