View Single Post
Old 11-12-2018, 03:58 PM   #22 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 982
Thanks: 271
Thanked 383 Times in 258 Posts
I'd take your bet.

Originally Posted by kach22i View Post
Subsidies.......................they pattern our world.

If not for the US Navy keeping shipping lanes free, little oil and or goods would make it to our shores, what do we add to the costs of such goods to establish a "true cost"?

Nuclear isn't viable as a private only venture, it gets subsides from the government, more so than even oil with it's crazy tax break schemes for dry wells and what not.

Green energy subsidies are rather transparent by comparison, we know why GE pays no taxes, they are green energy leaders.

My point: all of these energy schemes are subsidized and politicized at one level or another.

Want to kill one off, pull the plug - it's really that simple.

Most energy subsidies go not to renewables but to producing more of the dirty stuff.

Pull the plug and see which one wins.

I dare you.
Just as long as you don't place unnecessary oversight. That is a huge part of the associated costs of nuclear power. I have worked in the research industry and it is appalling how the smallest of nuclear materials, no matter how benign, must carry a mountain of paper and procedure. All for good reason. But streamlining these things can bring the cost down immensely. But that is not allowed. Each state and municipality has to have their say. So does every Green Group. THAT is why nuclear has to have a big government input. Just like the runaway costs of medicine in this country, nuclear is regulated out of the common and into the stratospheric.

A reasonable view of nuclear power along with reasonable oversight will make it the cheapest of power sources. This may take generations because we have to re-educate generations. The problem is, we as a society may not have that time, if the global warming people are right. The only way to get emissions under control and maintain the modern growth in technology and quality of life is to find a means to save on energy, create energy and distribute it, without upsetting our current societal trajectory.

Green Energy Subsidies have boosted things in the solar and wind sector. The other so called GREEN energy tech needs government to allow dams and geothermal, etc. Pull all those direct and indirect subsidies and you have, . . . Coal and oil? Solar and wind would still grow, but at a slower rate. Certainly, research would have been slower. Government subsidies are important in attracting initial research monies and efforts.

Third world regions have a chance to re-invent their energy portfolio. But they will run up against the very real problem of the diffuse and intermittent nature of solar and wind and will then look for baseline solutions weather it be storage or principal power. Growth needs consistent power. Some geo-locations will allow pumped hydro or gravity potential storage. Too many will not. Batteries are pricey and I'd rather my EV battery not be used and it's life shortened by the power grid. All my friends and family with EVs all feel the same way. Storage is easy when it is of a concentrated chemical form like fossil fuels. It becomes bulky and cumbersome as you try to store diffuse energy from renewables. Nuclear is thousands of times more energy dense than fossil fuels.

I'll bet on nuclear.
  Reply With Quote