Originally Posted by ziggyX65

And provided that people are not beholden to an ideal that we can go "all in" to any one form. "Green" power like solar, wind and other emerging technologies are in the mix and are probably the best long-term goal, but as we transition to it, "intermediate" bridge solutions like nuclear and natural gas are in the mix, and (yes, at least in the near term) development of domestic oil and coal. The fossil fuel dependence should reduce as a percentage over time, as cleaner, more sustainable and more renewable sources gradually come to dominate the grid.

The main reason we can't wait to develop "green" infrastructure, regardless of the price or supply of oil, is that a sufficient infrastructure build out will take many years, probably at least a decade, and if it suddenly "hits the fan" in terms of oil prices or oil supply that's too long for the market to react on its own. Yes, the free market would generate green renewables as soon as the oil situation was so bad that green power was cost-effective, but starting then would be way too late in terms of impact on our economy and our way of life. We don't need *massive* deployment of it immediately, but we *do* need to get started and slowly ramp up over (say) the course of my remaining lifetime.

Well said-I could not agree more.

Originally Posted by playwrite

However, I was under the impression that what really prevents new nuclear is the enormous cost and its financing even if one were to remove all govt regulations. Rate payers are not willing to take on the costs or the financial risks. Has that changed?

You may find the Georgia experience illustrative. Reactor design approved for Georgia Power's nuclear expansion project - December 22, 2011

Georgia moved one step closer to getting more electricity from nuclear power Thursday as federal regulators approved the design for what could be the first newly permitted reactors the nation has built from scratch in three decades.

The decision helps clear the path for two reactors to be built at Georgia Power's Plant Vogtle, near Augusta, and signals the return of the nation's nuclear power industry, which was stalled for nearly 30 years because of high costs and a protracted regulatory process.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's approval of the design means it can be used as a template for other utilities wanting to build nuclear plants, saving time and money. Each of the nation's existing 104 reactors has its own unique design, which had made the approval process longer and more expensive.

Thursday's 5-0 vote will be published in the federal register in seven days. After that the NRC can meet to decide whether to approve the final license needed to start heavy construction at Vogtle.
...

Executives from Georgia Power and its parent, Atlanta-based Southern Co., first went public with plans to add reactors at Vogtle in 2005. The utility is part of a group of power companies that want to add two reactors at Vogtle. The company is responsible for $6.1 billion of the estimated $14 billion in costs. Georgia Power's sister company, Southern Nuclear, which will operate the reactors, filed an application to expand Vogtle in March 2008.

Georgia Power's customers already are paying for the project's financing costs through a fee on monthly bills. That fee -- currently $3.88 a month but set to increase incrementally to $8.74 a month by 2015 -- will go away once the reactors start producing power in 2016 and 2017, but it will be replaced by the amount of the construction costs.

So the GA legislature passed a bill a couple of years ago that allowed GA Power to pre-charge for the nuclear plant. If the plant never opened, the money would be lost. This commitment from the rate payers ahead of time lowered the cost of financing a lot but added more risk for the rate payers.

Georgia is remarkably poor in renewable resources - too much cloud cover and very little wind. We must look elsewhere for our electric power.

James50

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Yes. Nuclear fission is indeed a bridge...to nuclear fusion power, which leaves no radioactive waste. Fusion, the power of the sun, is what will power most of the next saeculum..

The power of the sun, directly, with no need to imitate the sun!

I'll bet nuclear fusion, if it comes, will also be dangerous. But it's true, nuclear fission could be a bridge to nuclear fusion. But why not go green? Simple, elegant, grassroots, and already existing, instead of big, expensive, dangerous, hypothetical....

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Eric, usually you don't have any trouble reading what people say. This time you did. Rickover didn't supervise the design of the Fukishima reactor.

I don't know what the problem is with ditching nuclear power. It is obvious that it has ruined a whole region of land where people lived. Why would we want that?

Any other discussion of nuclear power (submarines, etc.) is irrelevant here. The question is about nuclear power plants as a source of energy. If we're still talking about it as a viable possibility, people have been drinking kool-aid instead of paying attention to what happened 11 months ago. Just like Americans didn't pay attention to what happened almost 2 years ago in the Gulf.

I dunno, maybe nuclear on this forum is as much a taboo as serious gun control. But a civilized society will ditch nuclear power, and embrace serious gun control. No need to open that debate now though....

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

And provided that people are not beholden to an ideal that we can go "all in" to any one form. "Green" power like solar, wind and other emerging technologies are in the mix and are probably the best long-term goal, but as we transition to it, "intermediate" bridge solutions like nuclear and natural gas are in the mix, and (yes, at least in the near term) development of domestic oil and coal. The fossil fuel dependence should reduce as a percentage over time, as cleaner, more sustainable and more renewable sources gradually come to dominate the grid.

The main reason we can't wait to develop "green" infrastructure, regardless of the price or supply of oil, is that a sufficient infrastructure build out will take many years, probably at least a decade, and if it suddenly "hits the fan" in terms of oil prices or oil supply that's too long for the market to react on its own. Yes, the free market would generate green renewables as soon as the oil situation was so bad that green power was cost-effective, but starting then would be way too late in terms of impact on our economy and our way of life. We don't need *massive* deployment of it immediately, but we *do* need to get started and slowly ramp up over (say) the course of my remaining lifetime.

Our "way of life" will be seriously disrupted by climate change, as will the lives of people and other species elsewhere. We have no right to kill off other species for the sake of our own skepticism and doubt. We do need massive deployment of it immediately, to the full extent possible. This is an emergency. The only thing holding this back is political will. Transition is wise, and it probably won't be possible to stop all new fossil fuel and nuclear development because of politics and skepticism, at least before 2020-plus; but if we did do things correctly, we would NOT do this, and instead go green asap, and meanwhile use gas and already-developed other fuels for the transition, of which we already have plenty.

We need to ramp up quickly, not slowly; and I predict that by the 2020s all political delays will be swept aside along with many other kinds of old fogey thinking that so dominates us today. It may take longer for the transition to be fully complete, but the need is to convert quickly enough to significantly reduce global warming and climate change soon, and get an economy going that is not dependent on ever-more shrinking and expensive dirty and dangerous fuels.

The transition can happen as quickly as we decide to do it. And our economy will benefit, the sooner we do it. Solar plants, windmills and transmission lines can be built in a few years. Charging stations and biofuel depots are not that hard to put up. The car companies can do what they are already capable of doing, instead of just doing what they are doing now. I think CA has put a line in the sand now; by the 2020s, CO2 must be reduced by 50%, and gas-mileage doubled. The car companies have agreed to do this. And yet people on this forum are even more skeptical than the car companies, and think we still need to rely on fuels that could turn our land and our world into a wasteland? I dunno folks....

Moderation in the pursuit of truth is no virtue.

Originally Posted by James50

You may find the Georgia experience illustrative. Reactor design approved for Georgia Power's nuclear expansion project - December 22, 2011


So the GA legislature passed a bill a couple of years ago that allowed GA Power to pre-charge for the nuclear plant. If the plant never opened, the money would be lost. This commitment from the rate payers ahead of time lowered the cost of financing a lot but added more risk for the rate payers.

Georgia is remarkably poor in renewable resources - too much cloud cover and very little wind. We must look elsewhere for our electric power.

James50

Georgia's true lack is in other regions of reality.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Georgia's true lack is in other regions of reality.

Would you like to be specific with your insults or is this just a drive-by?

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Would you like to be specific with your insults or is this just a drive-by?

James50

Backward thinking; that is obvious by which party Georgia supports, and your own thought expressed above. Giving up on going green in Georgia by making excuses. If Georgia does not have as much sun and wind, which I find a baffling thought anyway, then put in transmission lines to the places that have more. We already have these lines anyway; there are lots of power lines all over the country. Ever hear of the grid?

Backwards thinking and backwards politics; the land of Newt Gingrich has a bit too much of it. Sorry if that is "insulting," or if I sound arrogant; but it seems to me to be the fact. In your better moments, I still think you personally are not so backward as some other folks in your neck of the woods. I'm glad at least for that. And backward thinking is not such a hard thing to correct; it's not in peoples' DNA so to speak. Maybe you can move to CA, since you have business here! And I still have some hope for you guys. We all need to move forward now. It benefits all of us to do it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Backward thinking; that is obvious by which party Georgia supports, and your own thought expressed above. Giving up on going green in Georgia by making excuses. If Georgia does not have as much sun and wind, which I find a baffling thought anyway, then put in transmission lines to the places that have more. We already have these lines anyway; there are lots of power lines all over the country. Ever hear of the grid?

Backwards thinking and backwards politics; the land of Newt Gingrich has a bit too much of it. Sorry if that is "insulting," or if I sound arrogant; but it seems to me to be the fact. In your better moments, I still think you personally are not so backward as some other folks in your neck of the woods. I'm glad at least for that. And backward thinking is not such a hard thing to correct; it's not in peoples' DNA so to speak. Maybe you can move to CA, since you have business here! And I still have some hope for you guys. We all need to move forward now. It benefits all of us to do it.

As someone from the backwards midwest state of Illinois, your attitude toward other parts of the country is no great advertisement for your state. The condescension fairly drips. Perhaps your state, too, will eliminate capital punishment as Illinois has done.

Originally Posted by annla899

As someone from the backwards midwest state of Illinois, your attitude toward other parts of the country is no great advertisement for your state. The condescension fairly drips. Perhaps your state, too, will eliminate capital punishment as Illinois has done.

Illinois is a reliable blue state, and ahead of CA on that. But we have an initiative on the ballot that some people say will pass. I dunno if it will.

I think the beauty and aliveness of our people and our land and climate is pretty attractive, even outshining our condescending attitude! Just look at our property values.

I think James could make Georgia a bit more attractive by not making such outlandish statements as he did, that Georgia has to look elsewhere besides sun and wind for power. Handsome is as handsome does. But again, not all his statements are so backward, so I'm not making a blanket judgement, or I retract it if I did.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't know what the problem is with ditching nuclear power. It is obvious that it has ruined a whole region of land where people lived. Why would we want that?

Any other discussion of nuclear power (submarines, etc.) is irrelevant here. The question is about nuclear power plants as a source of energy. If we're still talking about it as a viable possibility, people have been drinking kool-aid instead of paying attention to what happened 11 months ago. Just like Americans didn't pay attention to what happened almost 2 years ago in the Gulf.

I dunno, maybe nuclear on this forum is as much a taboo as serious gun control. But a civilized society will ditch nuclear power, and embrace serious gun control. No need to open that debate now though....

The question is whether nuclear power plants can be designed and located safely, even though that particular one was not. It's a perfectly reasonable question, and the Navy's experience suggests that the answer is yes. Surely it's easier to prevent a reactor malfunction on dry land than in deep water?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The power of the sun, directly, with no need to imitate the sun!

I'll bet nuclear fusion, if it comes, will also be dangerous. But it's true, nuclear fission could be a bridge to nuclear fusion. But why not go green? Simple, elegant, grassroots, and already existing, instead of big, expensive, dangerous, hypothetical....

It is all about timing , engineering development and infrastructure development. Green energy is not available now at reasonable costs and quantities. In the future solar power will be available.

Can Geothermal Power Compete with Coal on Price?: Scientific American
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-coal-on-price

"Although the environmental benefits of burning less fossil fuel by using renewable sources of energy—such as geothermal, hydropower, solar and wind—are clear, there's been a serious roadblock in their adoption: cost per kilowatt-hour."...

Originally Posted by James50

You may find the Georgia experience illustrative. Reactor design approved for Georgia Power's nuclear expansion project - December 22, 2011


So the GA legislature passed a bill a couple of years ago that allowed GA Power to pre-charge for the nuclear plant. If the plant never opened, the money would be lost. This commitment from the rate payers ahead of time lowered the cost of financing a lot but added more risk for the rate payers.

Georgia is remarkably poor in renewable resources - too much cloud cover and very little wind. We must look elsewhere for our electric power.

James50

Whoa, $14 billion! That would be tough financing/insuring even for NYC. Given today's financial risk aversion, I would think this is impossible.

Oh, and that pre-paying and taking the risk of failure, if that were presented to NYers, there would be a riot. How did they ever get that through? Wow.

By the way, I can't pin this down to a precise number but I remember when I looked into it once that something like 2/5 of the NRC regulatory review is about financial viability.

I'm still wondering if M&L's modular approach lowers the costs considerably, and now, if that was something GA Power is trying.

I know that going modular for water treatment (i.e. membrane filtration) has greatly lowered the cost and brought the highest technology available to even small water systems serving just a few hundred people.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The question is whether nuclear power plants can be designed and located safely, even though that particular one was not. It's a perfectly reasonable question, and the Navy's experience suggests that the answer is yes. Surely it's easier to prevent a reactor malfunction on dry land than in deep water?

I don't see why we should take a chance on expensive, dangerous nuclear power when other alternatives are present. A navy ship is not a nuclear power plant; the two are not comparable.

Originally Posted by radind

It is all about timing , engineering development and infrastructure development. Green energy is not available now at reasonable costs and quantities. In the future solar power will be available.

I don't know why you make an assumption like that. What is your evidence?

My evidence is that solar power plants and solar rooftops exist now, and so do windmills, and so do electric and biofuel-powered cars. These sources are available now if we build them. Sure it takes a few years to build them; why should we not do so? We have all the old dirty energy we need until we get the green energy up and running. The stats I've seen and posted before make clear that the costs of dirty fuels are going up and the cost of green ones are going down, and the lines will cross in a few years. The price of gasoline is already outrageous; I don't know what other motivation we really need. Gas prices are crippling our economic growth, and were a major cause of the recent/ongoing depression. There needs to be competition to gas from electric and solar, or the prices will keep going up, and we'll continue to finance foreign sheiks and dictators.

You speak of a stalemate radind. I understand the desire to be reasonable. But Obama and the Democrats already share your moderate point of view. There's no question about who is blocking progress.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Georgia's true lack is in other regions of reality.

$0.02 .... When James50 or anybody else is discussing such matters on a rational level and citing facts, in my opinion, they should be encouraged by keeping the discussion on that level... $0.02

Originally Posted by playwrite

... I'm still wondering if M&L's modular approach lowers the costs considerably, and now, if that was something GA Power is trying.

I know that going modular for water treatment (i.e. membrane filtration) has greatly lowered the cost and brought the highest technology available to even small water systems serving just a few hundred people.

Here's some good old marketing hype for your reading pleasure. The design work is local to me (I walk by the office everyday). As I understand it, the argument for cost savings is not in the reactor per se, but in the licensing and siting. Building on-site is extemely expensive, and the testing that has to be passed at every stage is demanding. I think the idea is to off-load a lot of that onto a factory floor, and do much less on-site. I also believe that the reactors are shipped by rail, so they can't go everywhere.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...Fukushima....

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

As long as site the reactors inland and away form fault lines

I.e. he already addressed Fukushima, in case you didn't know that.

Japan is pretty much screwed in the land-away-from-faultlines department, admittedly (and it was seismic activity that caused the tsunami--but inland on a fault line would also be dangerous). As is California. Most of the rest of the US? Not so screwed.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't see why we should take a chance on expensive, dangerous nuclear power when other alternatives are present. A navy ship is not a nuclear power plant; the two are not comparable.

Yes they are. And more to the point, Navy reactors run on near weapons grade fuel, not the 5% enriched stuff used in commercial reactors. If anything qualifies as dangerous, it's a naval reactor, yet they have a great safety record.

Starting here -

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...306#post419306

- I have provided a current status and prognosis for our economy over the next couple of years based on MMT's sector analysis of CBO projections of federal deficit spending. That analysis sees a sub-par economic growth (2.4%) GDP in 2012 that is barely able to sustain the current employment rate.

On that same thread, my pre-election speculation lays out that Obama will be desperate to increase net federal deficit spending by at least $150 billion in order to have a trend of increasing employment by this summer. And, of course, the GOP angling to prevent that. The battlefield will be over extending the payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits among other means to increase federal deficit spending; the GOP being too smart (perhaps) to deny these will instead seek to "pay for them" by cutting other federal spending in a way that will result in no net increase in federal deficit spending to support a higher GDP growth and employment that would be beneficial to Obama.

Here, I like to speculate on what the Nov. 2012 election results will mean for the economy, post-election, into 2013 and beyond.

The two primary scenarios are, of course, whether Obama or the GOP nominee gets re-elected. Both scenarios assume that neither party will capture the necessary super-majority in the Senate and therefore, the gridlock situation we have today will continue. Whoever captures the House is essentially irrelevant other than for entertainment value.

The two primary scenarios can each be further sub-divided with the GOP side, of course, being parsed by who is the eventual nominee. However, given how the GOP primaries are playing out, both Gingrich and Paul are going to be in a position to likely demand Romney's otherwise more moderate viewpoints to harden into a more further Right position. Once elected, there will be constant "checking-in" of his conservative credentials. In the end, we can expect more or less very similar outcomes regardless of the GOP nominee - at least early-on in a new GOP Administration. This will be reinforced by the gridlocked Congress that would likely clip off the more extreme positions of the further-right GOP candidates. Also, for 2013 and into 2014, a GOP Administration will be able to blame any poor consequences of their policies/actions on the previous Obama Administration and thus they all should be able to get away with implementing about the same Right wing agenda before Congress clips off extreme. As such, on the GOP side, I will present only one scenario.

The more interesting (and therefore, more difficult to divine) two sub-options actually reside with Obama - what Obama will emerge in a second term: (a) the more-of-the-same, too-quick-to-compromise Obama or (b) a new take-no-prisoner attacking of the likely do-nothing Congress that we may have gotten a glimpse of in the past few months.

Mull this, as well as the background presented on the other thread, for awhile. I'll start laying out the scenarios later.

Remember, these will be done within the context (based on CBO projections of significant reductions in federal deficit spending) of a projected economic contraction starting in 2013 that will begin to cause the unemployment rate to creep up. By 2014, we will enter into at least a moderate recession with significant job losses. The current MMT model doesn't take into account negative feedback loops of a contracting economy that may have a moderate economic contraction quickly spiral into something worse (I'll be checking in with the modeler to see if this can be accounted for).

I think from the scenarios I will lay out, you will likely come to conclude that we are far from the conclusion of this 4T.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't know why you make an assumption like that. What is your evidence?

My evidence is that solar power plants and solar rooftops exist now, and so do windmills, and so do electric and biofuel-powered cars. These sources are available now if we build them. Sure it takes a few years to build them; why should we not do so? We have all the old dirty energy we need until we get the green energy up and running. The stats I've seen and posted before make clear that the costs of dirty fuels are going up and the cost of green ones are going down, and the lines will cross in a few years. The price of gasoline is already outrageous; I don't know what other motivation we really need. Gas prices are crippling our economic growth, and were a major cause of the recent/ongoing depression. There needs to be competition to gas from electric and solar, or the prices will keep going up, and we'll continue to finance foreign sheiks and dictators.

You speak of a stalemate radind. I understand the desire to be reasonable. But Obama and the Democrats already share your moderate point of view. There's no question about who is blocking progress.

I'm a cheerleader for the fastest reasonable build-out of renewables, but they don't scale well and they can't provide base load. They also must be sited in appropriate areas, and people tend to live in non-appropriate areas more ofte than not.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Whoa, $14 billion! That would be tough financing/insuring even for NYC. Given today's financial risk aversion, I would think this is impossible.

Oh, and that pre-paying and taking the risk of failure, if that were presented to NYers, there would be a riot. How did they ever get that through? Wow.

I.e., forward thinking, Eric!

But, California uber alles, right?

Seriously, this regionalistic arrogance of yours that surfaces every so often, is seriously shooting yourself in the foot. Do you think people are simply going to bow to such arrogance, or resist it (and you and your ideas, even the good ones, in the process)?

I am fairly to the left, but that is one major critique I have of some of my most vocal fellows--although I think that is thankfully starting to diminish overall. At the very least, what has it gotten us?

(There are some on the right who also engage in this, making their own cracks about California and "Taxachusetts", Palin's remarks about "the real America", etc. But I haven't seen James50, and don't recall others on the right on this board, doing so. It's best that people realize that people everywhere are... people, just like you and I .)

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't know why you make an assumption like that. What is your evidence?

My evidence is that solar power plants and solar rooftops exist now, and so do windmills, and so do electric and biofuel-powered cars. These sources are available now if we build them. Sure it takes a few years to build them; why should we not do so? We have all the old dirty energy we need until we get the green energy up and running. The stats I've seen and posted before make clear that the costs of dirty fuels are going up and the cost of green ones are going down, and the lines will cross in a few years. The price of gasoline is already outrageous; I don't know what other motivation we really need. Gas prices are crippling our economic growth, and were a major cause of the recent/ongoing depression. There needs to be competition to gas from electric and solar, or the prices will keep going up, and we'll continue to finance foreign sheiks and dictators.

You speak of a stalemate radind. I understand the desire to be reasonable. But Obama and the Democrats already share your moderate point of view. There's no question about who is blocking progress.

Just look at cost per KWH.
We have a different perception of Obama having a moderate point of view. I know that the Republicans are part of the problem-I just don't think that the Democrats are blameless. I have issues with both parties.

Originally Posted by radind

Just look at cost per KWH.

Or deaths per KWH, as has been mentioned elsewhere on this board.