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 : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (93853)	4/27/2008 6:31:15 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

OK, you believe nuclear power plants are so important from a strategic / military perspective that it's worth paying a lot more for electricity to accomplish this. That's a fair argument. But if you're willing to pay a lot more for electricity, nuclear power is just one of many alternatives that might have a role to play. But if you're suggesting, by paying a lot more for nuclear power America can save money by eliminating a large part of their military - so nuclear power is actually economic - then I'd suggest you're not very good at cost analysis because the savings you're counting on are very unlikely to occur. Chevron, on the other hand, didn't have any national security goals in mind but merely wanted to make profitable investments. So Chevron determined that nuclear energy was not profitable, with unpredictable catastrophic losses. Locating and mining uranium ore was profitable, so long as the government subsidized uranium use, and the loss was limited to the mine investment - so uranium mining was approved. .