Just wondering..

[Gerhard Fiedler]

W. Jacobs wrote:

> Byron Jeff wrote:
>> BTW I know it sounds like I'm talking about an exclusively nuclear
>> infrastructure. I really don't have a problem with solar, wind, or
>> hydro. But at the end of the day each present significant limitations
>> in their ability to provide wide scale power in a variety of different
>> situations. Sometimes the sun don't shine, the wind don't blow, and the
>> water don't flow. Use it where it's appropriate. But nuclear needs to
>> be a part of the mix.
 
> We must haul the ashes.

That's about the shortest description of the problem (or one of it) :)

> People talk about sending the ashes to Yucca Mountain. The people at
> Yucca Mountain don't want the ashes. It is their property, they have a
> right not to have it. The Yucca Mountain Repository is a government
> facility used to store spent fuel, the ashes out of a nuclear reactor.
> This is a government facility. I pay for this. I am subsidizing nuclear
> power and I do not want to.
>
> This facility needs to be operated by a consortium of nuclear power
> plants. The cost has to be born not by the public but by the user. This
> is my objection.
>
> We should not permit any more plants until we know what the power cost.
> We assume that nuclear power is completive with coal and wind and solar
> and all the other sources but we do not know.

The thing is that nuclear is a totalitarian form of energy. It requires a
central power to oversee and organize it -- and to push it through. No
central organization, no government intervention, no nuclear power. With
the subjects of the free market acting like they do, there is no way
nuclear power has any chance in a free market.

You can't praise the free market one day and the next day think the general
public (the subjects that make the free market work) are too ignorant to
know what's good for them, energy-wise.

Gerhard

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Martin Klingensmith]

Different experience, I realize, but thousands of people here around
Boston take the commuter rail (not including subway) every day to get to
and from work. I recall one particularly horrible snow storm this winter
- I lived in Somerville, MA and I work in Bedford, MA. It took me 3
hours to get home (it's 15 miles, walking may have been faster,
certainly more productive)
I don't recall hearing about any late trains that day. That counts as a
pretty high "enjoyment factor" by my standards. Unfortunately there is
no train that I can take to my place of work.

I really enjoy public transit when I can take it. $1.50 to get from one
side of the city to the other and not have to drive - I'll take it!
-
Martin
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Russell McMahon]

>> This facility needs to be operated by a consortium of
>> nuclear power
>> plants. The cost has to be born not by the public but by
>> the user. This
>> is my objection.

>> We should not permit any more plants until we know what
>> the power cost.
>> We assume that nuclear power is completive with coal and
>> wind and solar
>> and all the other sources but we do not know.
>
> The thing is that nuclear is a totalitarian form of
> energy. It requires a
> central power to oversee and organize it -- and to push it
> through. No
> central organization, no government intervention, no
> nuclear power. With
> the subjects of the free market acting like they do, there
> is no way
> nuclear power has any chance in a free market.
>
> You can't praise the free market one day and the next day
> think the general
> public (the subjects that make the free market work) are
> too ignorant to
> know what's good for them, energy-wise.

I hate to be "devil's advocate here" but it's horribly
possible that in a TRUE free market the price would be all
too low. AFAIR Russia (post Soviet bloc?) has previously
been a willing acceptor of nuclear waste. And I imagine that
China would be happy to compete on the free market as a
nuclear waste acceptor. And in a genuinely free market, for
certain classes of waste, you may even get people lining up
to pay you money to take it away. In fact, in a genuinely
free market you'd get people lining up to take nuclear waste
of  any sort away for free. What happens after that is
another matter. In part nuclear waste handling HAS to be
regulated at a government level because of how desirable and
undesirable it is, all at the same time. Allowing this
process into the invisible hand's hands would with certainty
lead to utter disaster in short order. If you need proof of
how as-much-power-as-you-can-manage-to-wrangle corrupts
as-much-power-as-you-can-manage-to-wrangle-lutely you need
look no further than eg Enron, Omni Consumer Products and
Halib...., er, tons of other examples exist - you get the
idea.

So, in measurinmg the true cost of nuclear you need to
spread the scope of "cost" fairly widely. Ongoing security
of waste at a high level is an utter necessity for as long
as people are people.

"We had another break in last night".
'Anyone see them this time?'
"No, not a trace. As per usual"
'Did they get anything valuable this time?'
"No. Same pattern as before. Just a few barrels of useless
rubbish"
'That's OK then. Strange. That's the third time this month'.

______________

Wanted to buy: Nuclear Waste. Any type & condition. Will
collect. Cash paid.




            Russell

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Gerhard Fiedler]

Apptech wrote:

>>> This facility needs to be operated by a consortium of nuclear power
>>> plants. The cost has to be born not by the public but by the user.
>>> This is my objection.
>>
>> The thing is that nuclear is a totalitarian form of energy. It requires
>> a central power to oversee and organize it -- and to push it through.
>> No central organization, no government intervention, no nuclear power.
>> With the subjects of the free market acting like they do, there is no
>> way nuclear power has any chance in a free market.
>>
>> You can't praise the free market one day and the next day think the
>> general public (the subjects that make the free market work) are too
>> ignorant to know what's good for them, energy-wise.
>
> I hate to be "devil's advocate here" but it's horribly possible that in
> a TRUE free market the price would be all too low.

Depends what you call a "true free market". My use of the term is one where
there are no externalities -- an ideal, of course, but so is most any other
social concept.

As long as people can be forced to accept radiation from a neighboring
property or substances leaking into the ground "for the greater good", it's
not a free market (in my sense).

> AFAIR Russia (post Soviet bloc?) has previously been a willing acceptor
> of nuclear waste. And I imagine that China would be happy to compete on
> the free market as a nuclear waste acceptor.

And I'm quite sure that the people in the places where they dump it don't
get to say whether they want that or not -- not a free market in the sense
I use the term.

> And in a genuinely free market, for certain classes of waste, you may
> even get people lining up to pay you money to take it away.

Only because they have places at their disposal that are not part of the
free market in my sense, and so they are creating an externality for the
free market.

> In fact, in a genuinely free market you'd get people lining up to take
> nuclear waste of  any sort away for free.

Also only because they are backed by a non-free market.

> What happens after that is another matter.

Not for me. Even if a country had a free market, but would start to sell
its waste to a non-free market, in my use of the term it would "import" the
non-free nature of the waste target market and therefore cease to be a free
market.

> In part nuclear waste handling HAS to be regulated at a government level
> because of how desirable and undesirable it is, all at the same time.
> Allowing this process into the invisible hand's hands would with
> certainty lead to utter disaster in short order.

A free market isn't one where there is only the "invisible hand". A free
market is one that is free of coercion (at least) -- and that goes really
deep, if you think about it. I don't think there would be nuclear waste to
start with, without coercion.

If some free market proponents think that environmental regulations go too
far, they should try looking at this with the eye of a truly coercion-free
market: nobody is forced to tolerate any effects of someone else on his or
her property, without consent. This would have far-reaching consequences.
Anything else is coercion, needs regulation (as to how much one can be
forced to tolerate for the greater good) and is not "free" anymore.

Gerhard

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist