I am glad that you are driving the numbers and not just your liberal bias. But those who replied to you were effectively able to draw out your true liberal bend. Hence, I would like you to revisit your position now that Mr. Libertarian Obama has approved new construction on Nuclear Power Plants. Can you still defend this position with the numbers with your daddy going that direction, or is he just placating Republican pressure and trying to create jobs the Republican way because none of his pre-election rhetoric panned out? Is he showing that only Republican plans demonstrate PRACTICAL returns? And while you are at it, please address the $700 BILLION debt to China that libertarians poured into the economy like water into sand that our children will have to pay back with no return…as in the return of energy production. At least Nuclear Energy has a myriad of returns. It is far more important that the USA stay at the forefront of all areas of nuclear development on a global stage. The country that owns the most nuclear knowledge wins…not the country that gives away the most money to its citizens (or illegal guests) with zero show of return (i.e. willingness to WORK for their handouts.)

I do agree that it is best to have an industry that can stand on its own and not be forever in the red. And since you have identified the problem, what is your solution to the global energy crisis? You apparently have one…and it IS science based, right? The world is anxiously awaiting another libertarian savior to walk on water and solve our energy crisis…and YOU’RE IT obviously. Or is all your talk just more highlighting of Republican faults as seen through liberal eyes? Don’t we get enough of that kind of yellow journalism noise thru Michael Moore and Jon Stewart? What is your PRACTICAL solution to the energy dilemma? (I don’t expect a liberal to have a solution, just more finger pointing at Republicans. But give it your best shot.)

Thanks. I’m going for the Nuke master’s degree. You helped solidify that.

You’re better off getting a construction management degree so you can be involved with the building of it (if that ever happens) and to have something to fall back on. Face it, there aren’t many jobs to go around when it comes to operating a nuclear plant. What are the odds you will beat the next guy for the job when we have millions of people out of work (granted they may not be trained) and overseas talent who have actual experience designing/building/running a plant instead of you coming right out of school.

If it’s your dream, by all means go for it. Just keep in mind that it’s not a video game and the whole thing isn’t rigged for a happy ending no matter what you choose.

You might have read the articles I posted but based on your opinion that they are “politically motivated” it indicates you did not understand them. This is not a political issue it’s a financial issue. Numbers. Math. Look at what is needed to get the ball rolling. The President has pledged almost $10 billion in loans to push nuclear forward even with a >50% probability of default on those loans.

Although this does not have to be a political issue it unfortunately seems to always go that way. Here’s my two cents:

A Libertarian deserves infinitely more respect than any Republican. While I might not agree with Libertarians (or any party) 100%, they are honest and consistent whereas Republicans stink of hypocrisy. They praise the free markets and despise “big government” but don’t want to talk about the huge subsidies they provide to the coal and nuclear industries. If coal and nuclear are so great why can’t they stand on their own feet? The only reason new technologies are not cost competitive with coal is because of strong lobbying on behalf of the coal industry. A coal operation is also a lot cheaper to run when the full costs of doing business are not recognized. If you’re not sure what the full costs of running a coal operation are you can ask the poor folks who live and work at or near coal mines about their water quality. Republicans can’t have it both ways. Either pick free markets or big government and stop whining. The GOP almost sound like an incompetent socialists. Instead of owning the corporations outright they insist on handing money to various industries/companies with no say in how they operate.

Nuclear is about to take off, there is no other option in our quest for green energy. You’re either going to be with it or against it, either way you’re going to have to learn to live with it.

So, as for your job Jack, I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. Being an ex-navy nuke, I am curious as to what your ex-navy coworkers say about their job. I can’t imagine any of them having as much love for it as you do. Seeing the situations some 20/21yr old navy kids deal with out at sea doing your job with so many other things factoring in on them is amazing. It blows my mind and I have all the respect in the world for them.

The job wasn’t for me, but knowing that I made it through my entire enlistment with; an honorable discharge, my sanity, all the memories, and knowing how many people (guys and girls) didn’t make it through, make me proud to be a veteran. Completing the nuclear program and fulfilling that commitment lead me to believe I can succeed at what ever my next career is. Good thing is I’ve got something to fall back on in case the situation requires it. Take those guys out for a round of beer (I imagine most of the crap you receive is from them) and let me know. How does it compare? Do they miss it? Why’d they stick with it? Are they actually making way more money?

Good luck to you Jack and congrats on finding a job you love

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/commodities/article.jsp?content=20061009_81255_81255

Private money has never financed the building of a nuclear power plant.

I’ll agree that the plant is operating at a profit but it is not out of the red yet. The operating partnership is making money while the real losers are the taxpayers because they will never recover the capital costs.

http://www.friendsofbruce.ca/IRs/Debt_Freightrain182002.html

http://www.brucepower.com/pagecontent.aspx?navuid=1

Bruce Power, a privately owned company currently provides 20% of Ontario’s power and is planning to open 5 new reactors in Ontario and some in Saskatchewan.

There is no private money because… it is expensive to build a plant. If something goes wrong the private investor is screwed and who knows the amount of money it could take to fix. Private investors typically invest in sure fire bets, which is hard to say about a nuclear plant because there is such a perceived uncertainty with them. The need for the government money is to take fiscal responsibility so that this technology can grow — eventually people will be come educated and learn that there is nothing to fear and private investing will take place.

100 billion? That is peanuts compared to the ongoing bailout, the war, healthcare costs, etc. There are privately run plants after they have been built and they don’t get any government funding and remain very profitable. It will take time but eventually this technology should be fully supported by the public.

I also work for a Nuclear power plant in Design Engineering, I just graduated from school in August with a degree in Electrical Engineering. It is good to see an article like this. Very accurate information, but I have so much more to learn.

Show me a study I’ll show you another. One point you have driven home for me is the point I made in my article where part of my job is dealing with people like you on a daily basis.

This article is about the job – not the technology. If you want to argue the technology then there is no shortage of environmentalists on the net who would love to agree with you.

By the way – Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda, Namibia, Chile, Venezuela, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Bangladesh, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Albania, Portugal, Norway, Poland, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Ireland, Turkey, Iran, Yemen, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco

All of those countries are developing nuclear energy – I bet they all have people smarter than us too.

The bottom line is the cost per delivered kWh for nuclear is higher than anything else available regardless of the level of subsidies it gets. Even if the ratio of subsidies is lower for nuclear, you are still paying for it either through taxes or straight out of your pocket. As soon as people get the option to purchase power other than nuclear in markets where nuclear facilities exist, the public will stop personally subsidizing the cost, making it higher for the die-hards like yourself.

Many people much smarter than you or me have studied this and come to the conclusion that it is too expensive and will become even more so as time goes on. Here is another study you can “read”.

http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E05-08_NukePwrEcon.pdf

Furthermore the political motivation of this article is so blatant it slaps you across the face when you read it. This was written in June, while the presidential election was going on and the very first line of the article basically says “John McCain is wrong about nuclear power!” At the end of the article, in the “about the author” section, it links to the organization the author heads up, http://climateprogress.org/
it takes about 5 seconds looking at that website to realize it also is very politically biased. In short the author obviously has a chip on his shoulder, and I would take everything he wrote with a grain of salt.