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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric who wrote (22387)	7/29/2010 4:23:10 PM
From: teevee	5 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

Eric, The article is a pile of cr*p on numerous counts: THE leading commercial nuclear reactor program that will re energize the USA is small modular nuclear, based on the tried, true and 100% safe reactors in the navy's Trident submarines and aircraft carriers, with the first demonstration plant to be built by the TVA, BWC and Bechtel. These plants will be manufactured in the USA, by Americans, will be sold on a turnkey basis to US and foreign utilities, with fixed costs AND on time delivery. The BWC and Bechtel joint venture is known as "mPower". Regarding Texas renewables, why not include into the energy mix, solar-steam plants with liquid salt heat storage for smooth continuous grid power? BWC built the first demonstration plant in California for eSolar and its performance is exceeding expectations. BWC is also a leader in biomass energy plants. Other critical nuclear energy that BWC is involved with are isotope reactors for making nuclear medicine. The so called "union of concerned scientists" appear to be out of the mainstream loop as there are plenty of home grown, cost effective green energy solutions that keep jobs at home and provide US jobs for export of US energy technology services and contracts.

To: Eric who wrote (22387)	7/29/2010 4:36:14 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Going back to horse and buggies, wood stoves, clipper ships, plowing with horses and oxen would create a lot of green jobs too.

To: Eric who wrote (22387)	7/29/2010 4:41:42 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 86356

working on stabilizing Guam so it won't tip over would create a lot of green jobs

To: Eric who wrote (22387)	8/17/2010 12:22:02 PM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Respond to of 86356

Renewable Energy Would Create More Jobs Than Nuclear Power In direct terms it probably would, and that's a problem with it. As I noted before employing more people to produce the same amount of energy is a cost not a benefit. It raises the cost of providing the energy, while at the same time pulling those people away from producing other goods and services. The higher energy costs (and also in an eventual tight labor market, which will happen at some point, the reduction in availability of skilled productive employees) make other industries less profitable, and tends to cause them to employ fewer people, and/or pay the people they do employ less. If nuclear (as the article claims) can't get financing and doesn't make economic sense at current fossil fuel prices (a point which could be disputed, and has been in another response to your post, but which is outside the scope of this post), than pouring resources in to it, in efforts that are profitable only for those who receive subsides, and don't actually produce a real overall profit, also causes some of the same sorts of problems. If it needs massive subsidies to happen, than it shouldn't happen either. But whether or not nuclear energy makes economic sense in an overall sense, directly employing fewer people per unit of energy produced is a benefit not a downside.

To: Eric who wrote (22387)	8/18/2010 12:52:30 AM
From: Peter Dierks	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

ROTFL: Renewable Energy Would Create More Jobs Than Nuclear Power It is true that banning mechanical street sweepers and hiring the unemployed to do it with carts and brooms would create more jobs. This does not mean that any efficiencies will benefit society from it. The cost to society of wasting labor includes lost opportunity cost.