What if the government spent 900 Billion building new Nuclear plants?

Doesn't that solve all our problems?

Employment: Check!
Energy Independance: Check!
Stimulus: Check!

2/18/2009 7:05:17 PM

takes a long time to zone, design, and build nuclear plants. the whole process can take a decade.

2/18/2009 7:07:10 PM

It takes longer than that with all the obstructionary lawsuits by environmental groups nowadays.

2/18/2009 7:11:31 PM

Well we better throw out billions of dollars that does not exist to improve our cultural arts center if that is the case.

2/18/2009 7:12:14 PM

Quote :

"takes a long time to zone, design, and build nuclear plants. the whole process can take a decade."

Even more reason to start now. Id rather have cheap energy in 10 years than 80% of the pork thats in the stimulus package.

Also, our current reactors have already exceeded the orignal life expectancy. WTF are we going to do when we have 100+ reactors shuting down after 60 years of service. Burn more Coal?

2/18/2009 7:53:22 PM

i'm all for nuclear plants

only problem is that we love our 2 party system so much that it has to be NUCLEAR WILL SAVE US and NUCLEAR WILL KILL US

2/18/2009 7:55:37 PM

Quote :

"Also, our current reactors have already exceeded the orignal life expectancy. WTF are we going to do when we have 100+ reactors shuting down after 60 years of service. Burn more Coal?"

most are reapplying for 20 more years

they were definitely overbuilt because there wasnt the computational power available back in the day

the reactor im working on right now, we are designing it for 100 year life with an emphasis on minimizing the amount of material that will have to be disposed as hazardous material

2/18/2009 8:00:13 PM

Some GOP Governors Balk At Stimulus Money
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/19/politics/main4812194.shtml

and then there's this guy

Quote :

"SC gov says he'll take money despite misgivings Feb 19, 7:40 AM (ET) WASHINGTON (AP) - South Carolina's Republican governor says his state will accept money from President Barack Obama's stimulus plan even though he is ideologically opposed to it. Gov. Mark Sanford says being against the plan "doesn't preclude taking the money." Sanford said Thursday on CBS'"The Early Show" that he took a stand against the president's economic plan because it's "a bad idea." But he says ultimately he represents the interests of the almost 5 million people of his state, and he will look over the plan and decide which parts would help South Carolina. Sanford also expressed skepticism about Obama's plan to reduce home foreclosures. The governor says: "Throw enough money at any problem and you're going to help some folks.""

[Edited on February 19, 2009 at 9:09 AM. Reason : rewrooooo]

2/19/2009 9:07:36 AM

Glad to see the Governor is a man of principles.

2/19/2009 9:14:17 AM

Since the money is going to be spent anyway, he might as well take it and put it to whatever good (or ill) he can come up with. There's principles and then there's down right stupidity, and he would be neglectful in his duties to his constituents if he didn't get his cut from the money that is already being spent.

2/19/2009 9:57:49 AM

^ Here here.

2/19/2009 10:02:43 AM

From Drudge:

Quote :

" VIDEO: 'The government is promoting bad behavior... do we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages... This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage? President Obama are you listening? How about we all stop paying our mortgage! It's a moral hazard'... MORE... TRADERS REVOLT: CNBC HOST CALLS FOR NEW 'TEA PARTY'; CHICAGO FLOOR MOCKS OBAMA PLAN "

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

2/19/2009 1:02:07 PM

Santelli for the win

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

Also, it annoys me to no end how childish the douchebags on the other end from him are taking this. They have been trying to cheerlead this shit since day 1, I get sick of it.

2/19/2009 2:05:37 PM

Its pretty easy to tout economically immature viewpoints like Santelli's but I'd like to point out that 'those losers', the ones that bought the 700k homes now valued at 330k, can very easily just walk away and dump the property on the lender. Which, actually, is exactly what they are doing.

The people truly getting hurt are those who bought the more affordable homes on ARMs and other exotic financial devices are suddenly facing an interest rate adjustment.

2/19/2009 2:27:30 PM

Quote :

"The people truly getting hurt are those who bought the more affordable homes on ARMs and other exotic financial devices are suddenly facing an interest rate adjustment. "

I think you are off a bit, these people made a decision to get an ARM. The ones getting hurt in all this are the ones who bought a house they can pay for and are now being asked to pitch in to help those who bought home they coudlnt pay for or took a risk on.

2/19/2009 2:48:33 PM

Well they certainly signed on to an ARM but chances are they were most likely marketed and sold that product. If ceo's of major banks can make terrible bets on these products, then its not surprising to me that average Americans are being bitten by it too.

Furthermore, as anyone who has ever gotten a mortgage will tell you, even a standard 30 year has so many terms and conditions and hidden fees that have to be rooted out.

2/19/2009 3:13:01 PM

economically immature? Can you even defend that statement? The % of the population that got "took" because of shady lending practices is fairly small compared to the bigger message that Santelli is espousing.

Quote :

"even a standard 30 year has so many terms and conditions and hidden fees that have to be rooted out."

It isn't that complicated. Generally speaking, you have to pay payment X every month for 30 years and you have to keep insurance on it. Everything else simply doesn't matter.

[Edited on February 19, 2009 at 3:19 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2009 3:17:50 PM

Qualify what? He's grandstanding for TV and you don't need a psychiatric degree to see that. If this were a case of just a few people getting greedy, we wouldn't be on the verge of total financial collapse.

Quote :

"It isn't that complicated. Generally speaking, you have to pay payment X every month for 30 years and you have to keep insurance on it. Everything else simply doesn't matter."

Right and thats completely ignoring early payout penalties, what your actual APR works out too, percentage of fees as part of an overall loan and your gain/loss over 5, 10 and 15 years.

Your lender is going to push you to sign probably touting the fact that you have a 4.75% interest rate and 0 money down required while not mentioning that he's rolling in 20,000$ worth of fees into your loan and depending on appreciation, fees you might never recover.

Also not considering PMI.

And thats just a 30yr.

3, 5 and 7 yr ARMS are an entirely different beast.

2/19/2009 3:38:45 PM

Quote :

"Well they certainly signed on to an ARM but chances are they were most likely marketed and sold that product."

The marketing of this stuff was great. "Interest rates are at an all time low! Now is the best time to get a new home with an Adjustable Rate Mortgage."

Did anyone else when they heard those sorts of ads ask themselves why, if interest rates were at an all time low, would they want to get an adjustable rate loan instead of locking their rate?

These are simple questions one should ask before signing on for a 30 year loan.

2/19/2009 3:42:02 PM

Its even worse then that when you start getting into balloon payments and double mortgages.

I'm not defending people that bought out of their means, but this isn't really just a 'niche' problem, but a nationwide problem with huge ramifications- as we are seeing them clearly play out.

2/19/2009 3:44:07 PM

It is not a nationwide problem. Just five states account for more than 95% of the problem.

2/19/2009 4:31:50 PM

Foreclosures aren't a nationwide problem in the sense that every state is suffering heavily from them, their impact however, is.

2/19/2009 6:00:20 PM

Quote :

"Right and thats completely ignoring early payout penalties, "

I don't know, but I expect early payment penalty loans are exceedingly low, and I further expect those able to pay early knew exactly what they had. You can't jump from borrowers that were duped and couldn't afford their homes to talking about early payment penalties.

Quote :

"what your actual APR works out too,percentage of fees as part of an overall loan and your gain/loss over 5, 10 and 15 years."

All of that simply doesn't matter. #1 Can you afford the payment, #2 If you lose your source of income, how long before you are booted out. Again, there were plenty of people that got put in 2 year negative amort loans that had no chance, there were also people that knew they weren't making the 4x stated income that went on their applications...why should those people get help?

Quote :

"Your lender is going to push you to sign probably touting the fact that you have a 4.75% interest rate and 0 money down required while not mentioning that he's rolling in 20,000$ worth of fees into your loan and depending on appreciation, fees you might never recover."

Again, it just doesn't matter on average. If you can afford the payment now, it doesn't matter how much was rolled in and how little you put down. These people were put in ARMs and told they would refinance in 2 years if it was going to reset to too high of a rate. Why didn't they ask how much that would cost? Why didn't they ask what would happen if the rates were high? I got an ARM and the only terms I cared about was that it could go up 2% every 5 years and what would my payment now be. At some point we have to

#1 Punish the crooks that lied on no doc loans
#2 Punish the rating agencies that enjoyed high stakes payola
#3 Let those that drank from the American Dream punch without knowing what it was spiked with learn their lesson

Quote :

"Its even worse then that when you start getting into balloon payments and double mortgages."

I put 10k down on my first house of 157k and it had a bulk loan of 125k at 4.65 and a gap loan at 7.15 - both payments, one going to one lender and one going to the bank were direct deposit. Shit isn't hard.

2/19/2009 7:29:03 PM

And in regards to the stock market and the CNBC guy...

Remind me why I should give a crap about Wall Street's opinion on anything? They're the ones who created this situation. I take their disapproval as a positive sign.

2/19/2009 8:20:27 PM

Oh I forgot that everyone that has an opinion that could possibly be associated with Wall Street got us in this mess.

2/19/2009 8:25:41 PM

Should I dig up clips of CNBC anchors mocking the idea that we were experiencing a housing bubble?

2/19/2009 8:31:42 PM

Yes, because their individual views speak for all of wall street, everyone in America, and the world. That sounds like a productive use of your time.

[Edited on February 19, 2009 at 9:23 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2009 9:22:51 PM

I must admit i'm pretty disgruntled with all the crap democrats added to the stimulus bill taht have nothing to do with helping the economy.

It is like they are using the economic crisis as an excuse to pass legislation to fund shit they have not been able to pass for the last 8 years. Similar to how the Bush administration used 9/11 to pass a bunch of gov't and military expanding bills that also trampled on the civil rights of its population.

Quote :

"The ones getting hurt in all this are the ones who bought a house they can pay for and are now being asked to pitch in to help those who bought home they coudlnt pay for or took a risk on."

b.c everyone who has been foreclosed on or defaulted on their mortgages are all stupid irresponsible spenders who are living above their means. Surely none of these people are any part of the growing % of people in this country that have gotten laid off due to the snowballing effect of the receding economy. I agree with what you say but you are completely over-generalizing.

the banks and consumers are EQUALLY at fault in my mind for the real estate bust. For every foolish homeowner trying to live up to the Jonses getting a bigger house then they need is a sleazy banker that tricked or manipulated an average american family into signing onto a deal they really couldn't afford.

[Edited on February 19, 2009 at 10:00 PM. Reason : l]

2/19/2009 9:52:38 PM

what the fuck is this shit

http://www.recovery.gov/?q=node/88

why does "tax relief" have an asterisk that says:

"* Tax Relief - includes $15 B for Infrastructure and Science, $61 B for Protecting the Vulnerable, $25 B for Education and Training and $22 B for Energy, so total funds are $126 B for Infrastructure and Science, $142 B for Protecting the Vulnerable, $78 B for Education and Training, and $65 B for Energy."

why not list the actual numbers rather than trying to mislead people?

[Edited on February 20, 2009 at 5:25 PM. Reason : fixed link]

2/20/2009 5:25:31 PM

^ because most people don't want to read/can't read something that looks like this: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9989/hr1conference.pdf

From this page: http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/frequently-asked-questions#2

[Edited on February 20, 2009 at 5:49 PM. Reason : ]

2/20/2009 5:49:41 PM

what the hell is protecting teh vulnerable?

2/20/2009 7:01:53 PM

Quote :

"From The New Yorker Murphy writes that "Americans have been casting eyes back to ancient Rome since before the Revolution," and goes on to interrogate the comparisons drawn both by "triumphalists," who see the world’s only superpower in terms of the Roman Empire at its height, and by "declinists," who see America as "dangerously overcommitted abroad and rusted out at home," like Rome before its fall. Murphy makes telling points about the solipsism of political élites and the impact of corruption and cronyism on civil society, but he stops short of predicting America’s fall. (Indeed, he argues that it is simplistic to say that Rome fell.) Instead, he points to a malaise exemplified by the debasement of the term "franchise," once associated with freedom to vote, and now with commerce: "Here, in miniature, is the political history of America." Murphy prescribes antidotes, and finds grounds for cautious optimism in the words of Livy: "An empire remains powerful so long as its subjects rejoice in it." Copyright © 2007 Click here to subscribe to The New Yorker"

We have a lot in common with Rome. I would like to read this at some point.

Quote :

"What if the government spent 900 Billion building new Nuclear plants? Doesn't that solve all our problems? Employment: Check! Energy Independance: Check! Stimulus: Check!"

2/22/2009 1:15:48 PM

Quote :

"We have a lot in common with Rome. I would like to read this at some point."

message_topic.aspx?topic=542049

2/22/2009 1:24:06 PM

^Thanks for the link.

As for the Nuclear power issue, the government hasn't allowed a Nuclear plant to be built since the meltdown at 3 mile island which came before the Chernobyl meltdown.

2/22/2009 2:07:41 PM

which is ridiculous, short-sighted and stupid.....but thats another thread

2/22/2009 3:10:16 PM

So, we have 100+ reactors that have been running since the 60s, and have yet to have one melt down. Even TMI didn't harm anyone.

Chernobyl shouldn't even be mentioned. It was a totally different type of reactor, Graphite moderated. It was run by a different country, Soviet Union. And there were a lot of bad decisions made before it melted down.

US Nuclear is safe. It is a highly regulated industry that is proliferated with ridiculous amounts safety mechanisms.

2/22/2009 8:26:22 PM

I'm 100% pro nuclear. Global warming liberals get clean power. Conservatives get energy independence.

The people against new plants are probably the same crazies who get bent out of shape when someone brings up the topic of concealed carry on campus "But but every 18 yr old freshman would be running around with guns shooting people !!
"

2/22/2009 8:29:59 PM

yes, clearly.

2/22/2009 8:32:41 PM

Quote :

"Similar to how the Bush administration used 9/11 to pass a bunch of gov't and military expanding bills that also trampled on the civil rights "

So true. Politicians froth at the chance to use war and crisis to increase their hold and influence.

Quote :

"the banks and consumers are EQUALLY at fault in my mind for the real estate bust."

And don't forget it was the gov't that encouraged everyone to act irresponsibly.

2/23/2009 12:33:47 AM

Quote :

"So, we have 100+ reactors that have been running since the 60s, and have yet to have one melt down. Even TMI didn't harm anyone. Chernobyl shouldn't even be mentioned. It was a totally different type of reactor, Graphite moderated. It was run by a different country, Soviet Union. And there were a lot of bad decisions made before it melted down. US Nuclear is safe. It is a highly regulated industry that is proliferated with ridiculous amounts safety mechanisms."

I agree, but the first things that come to peoples minds when talks about Nuclear energy come up is...

2/23/2009 12:53:23 AM

than why aren't we shutting down the old reactors. I'm sure a nuke plant from 1968 is more likely to melt down than a plant being constructed today. With all the latest technology in nuclear reactors, controls, and safeguards.

2/23/2009 5:29:23 AM

The idea of a meltdown in regards to the new designs on the drawing board is simple nonsense. They still do probabilistic risk assessment, but it's sheer pointlessness. The 'calculations' reveal that a core damage event will happen once in every 1,000,000 reactor years or something, but what people don't understand is that the analysis made absolutely ridiculous assumptions in the first place, like assuming that the primary circuit piping would just randomly fly apart every now-and-then.

There is no debate about nuclear safety, it's a dinosaur from a time past.

If anything is going to melt down, I promise you it won't be on this side of the planet.
http://pepei.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=ONART&PUBLICATION_ID=6&ARTICLE_ID=349942&C=INDUS&dcmp=rss

Quote :

"12 January 2009 - Starved of gas following Russia's dispute with Ukraine, Slovakia has announced plans to restart a Soviet-era nuclear reactor in defiance of the European Union, and to the fury of Austria."

Anyone who still presses the safety argument in reference to plants in this nation, whether operating or proposed is an idiot. The risk of meltdown for one East European reactor running for 1 year is probably worse than the risk of all American reactors running for the rest of time. And in terms of occupational safety, the industry has a better safety record than real estate and a medically significant dose to any work or member of the public is also a thing of the past. Nuclear is the rock bottom in comparison to safety other power sources, even completely smashing wind and solar.

You are likely running a higher risk to your person going to a town hall meeting to protest a new nuclear plant than what you would run for the rest of your life due to the plant being built.

The argument is a dinosaur and the industry has over corrected to an incomprehensible degree.

[Edited on February 23, 2009 at 6:20 AM. Reason : ]

2/23/2009 6:18:07 AM

^I think the other issue is that people who protest are worried about where the waste will be stored. No one wants that type of facility near them.

2/24/2009 12:05:15 AM

Storing nuclear waste is a real issue.

2/24/2009 12:19:35 AM

^ yes I agree. Nuclear Power and Nuclear Bomb are closely related in most peoples minds. The media and Hollywood have taken every opportunity to exploit this fact. Its sells news and tv shows. Its a shame though, nuclear power is one of the all time greatest engineering achievements.

Nuclear Industry will have to spend tons of money to repair its image, if that is even possible. Maybe renaming "Nuclear Power Plant" to "Fission Energy Plant" or "Atomic Energy Plant" would help.

2/24/2009 12:31:03 AM

I blame the "Civilization" game series for half of the fear of nuclear meltdown today.

2/24/2009 9:17:04 AM

Nuclear power plants are pretty fucking expensive.

For a private developer or invester, a coal or natural-gas power plant is gonna give a lot more bang for the buck.

Of course, we could change that if we put a tax on those fossil fuels to reflect their environmental costs, but it's not real popular to raise energy prices at a time when so many people are struggling.

2/24/2009 10:56:38 AM

Quote :

"^ yes I agree. Nuclear Power and Nuclear Bomb are closely related in most peoples minds. The media and Hollywood have taken every opportunity to exploit this fact. Its sells news and tv shows. Its a shame though, nuclear power is one of the all time greatest engineering achievements. Nuclear Industry will have to spend tons of money to repair its image, if that is even possible. Maybe renaming "Nuclear Power Plant" to "Fission Energy Plant" or "Atomic Energy Plant" would help."

The word atomic would not be good because when people hear that they will think of the Atomic Bomb being dropped on Japan.

2/24/2009 12:36:57 PM

Quote :

"Nuclear Industry will have to spend tons of money to repair its image, if that is even possible. Maybe renaming "Nuclear Power Plant" to "Fission Energy Plant" or "Atomic Energy Plant" would help."

We've been around this block. Back in the 50s and 60s "atomic power" was going to change our lives and make energy practically free.

Personally, I find the family of words focusing around "atom" to be imprecise. The concept of an atom is neat and everything, but no less relevant to chemistry over fission and fusion. "Nuclear" correctly specifies that the process pertains specially to the nucleus.

--
In regards to waste, I wish that I could stress just how much bigger society's other problems are.

Spent nuclear fuel is not leaky stuff. Imagine a ceramic plate, and you're getting close to an idea of how difficult it is to manage. Think about archeological sites. How well has the condition of ceramic items held up?

The only reason nuclear waste is a problem is because people keep telling themselves it is. The truth is that it is a invaluable energy resource for the future and questions of its safety in dry storage are plain idiocy. Nuclear waste is pretty much a big hot rock. After 50 years it's not even that hot, more like a lukewarm rock.

So that's what the problem resolves to. A few football fields of a solid inanimate energy resource that some politicians consider unacceptable. You know... I'm sure that peak oil, massive overpopulation, resource depletion, environmental destruction of the Earth, potentially catastrophic global warming, and rapid industrialization of half of the world don't compare. We can continue with ethanol biofuels, coal, petroleum and the problems they'll cause, I mean those rocks sound dangerous.

2/24/2009 1:16:27 PM

Quote :

"I blame the "Civilization" game series for half of the fear of nuclear meltdown today."

If any video game had an impact, I would say SimCity more than Civilization. With the former, you could witness first hand all the little radioactive particles sprayed across your residential districts. Yeah, nuclear plants and orbital solar arrays ("Oops!").

I'm a big proponent of nuclear power as well. For all the criticisms, the fact that we're still using these ancient plants and keep extending them indicates to me that there's still a critical need for their capabilities.

2/24/2009 1:20:15 PM