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 for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (520451)	11/7/2012 8:57:33 PM
From: neolib	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793772

Solar? (Rhetorical question). Yes, actually, and very easily. And as a matter of fact, even cheaper. The problem with those who champion nukes is that they never count the cost, even though you started your response by talking about cost benefit. The cost of nuke power extents very far into the future, and nuke operators want to socialize the downstream cost. No different than fossil fuels and GHG. Its benefit now, and kick the can down the road for your grandkids to pay back. No nuke plants would ever be built if you did the following simple step: Record the kwh of power consumed from nuke sources and attach that number to estates of those who consumed the power. If any expenses show up in the future, the users get the pleasure of paying in proportion to what they consumed. If you privatize the benefits, make sure you privatize the full costs as well. And make sure its 100% of all the risk, so make sure it stays attached to their heirs as well.