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 : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (54493)	5/13/2009 2:33:25 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149317

"Not having enough uranium for a sustained large nuclear program has been known for a long time Wharfy. " Unfortunately, not by enuf of the right people. Any plant coming on-line after 2020 is gonna have problems finding fuel. The world has hit the energy wall. Consider, for example, the fact that China and India want to be us. These 3 countries alone would be using 9/4 of the world's annual oil production. I just can't see that happening. Published on Wednesday, May 2, 2001 in the Guardian of London Going Backwards Cheney Promises Big US Nuclear Power Expansion by Martin Kettle in Washington, Paul Brown and Mark Milner Mr Cheney has shrugged aside these difficulties, and given the government-owned British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), which two years ago bought the biggest US nuclear reactor designer, Westinghouse Electric, a huge boost. Westinghouse has designed half the world's nuclear stations and 60% of those in the US. Eighteen months ago, after 14 years of work, its newest design, the AP600, was licensed by the US department of energy, but none has been built. At 600MW, it is much smaller than previous Westinghouse station: half the size of Britain's newest nuclear station, Sizewell B in Suffolk, also a Westinghouse design. The idea would be to build a series of them across the US. Mr Cheney said between 1,300 and 1,900 new generating plants would be needed. If Westinghouse built only a few of them it would make BNFL a very rich company. commondreams.org

To: koan who wrote (54493)	5/13/2009 6:00:08 PM
From: Mac Con Ulaidh	Respond to of 149317

From Calculated Risk, via Andrew Sullivan (who I am always inclined to refer to as Matthew) - The Impact of Changes in the Saving Rate on PCE by CalculatedRisk on 5/11/2009 01:44:00 PM On Saturday I excerpted from a NY Times article Shift to Saving May Be Downturn’s Lasting Impact. I argued: The saving rate will probably continue to rise (an aging population usually pushes the saving rate higher) and a rising saving rate will repair household balance sheets, but ... this will also keep pressure on personal consumption. First, here is a graph of the annual saving rate back to 1929. Click on graph for large image. Notice that the saving rate went negative during the Depression as household used savings to supplement income. And the saving rate rose to over 25% during WWII. There is a long period of a rising saving rate (from after WWII to 1974) and a long period of a declining saving rate (from 1975 to 2008). Some of the change in saving rate was related to demographics. As the large baby boom cohort entered the work force in the mid '70s, the saving rate declined (younger families usually save less), however I expected the saving rate to start to rise as the boomers reached their mid-40s (in the late '90s). This didn't happen. Perhaps the twin bubbles - stock market and housing - deluded the boomers into thinking they had saved more than they actually had. Perhaps the boomers were deluded by bad economic analysis (see David Malpass: Running on Empty?) continued... calculatedriskblog.com