Clamshell Reunion

[Recumbent ReCycler]

You know, there wouldn't be nearly as much nuclear waste if they would refine and reuse the spent fuel.  Unfortunately a very old federal regulation prohibits the refining of spent nuclear fuel in the US.  Many other countries are doing it with great success.

[BillKauffman]

Unfortunately a very old federal regulation prohibits the refining of spent nuclear fuel in the US. 

Why?

[41mag]

Unfortunately a very old federal regulation prohibits the refining of spent nuclear fuel in the US. 

Why?

I believe the "thinking" was that it might fall into the wrong hands.   

[Pat McCotter]

I say yes to getting the governmant out of the way and letting the free market decide. I understand people's desire to keep the toxic portions of the envirnment out of their bodies - I'm one of them - but how do we go about solving our political problem.

Kudos to you for going after the transportation sector as you are since that is the primary consumer of petroleum and second only to the electric power sector for wasted energy. But using electricity to power vehicles brings us back to the growing demand for it.

And why aren't you going after the power companies using coal to produce electricity? They're the people putting stuff in your lungs. As of 2002 the US got ~54% of our electricity from coal, ~21% from nuclear and ~15% from natural gas. Hydro came in at ~7% with the rest (biomass, solar, wind) bundled into the remaining 3%. Yes, the percentages are different in NH but that is only because there is more biomass available. Coal is still a big percentage.

[Pat McCotter]

Thank you, Jack, for making me think more clearly about the issue here.

I am not going to fight the utilities providing us with electricity. I am also not going to fight the government providing subsidies to those same utilities as well as providers of just about anything the people working in those industries have convinced the government is vital to our well-being.

I am also not going to fight people in te liberty movement about issues they are passionate about.

What I am going to do is attempt to educate people about how the government takes their energy and uses it in ways that is detrimental to them.

Just as the first amendment says the government should not establish any specific religion, government should also be prohibited from establishing where we get our energy, food, clothing, water, entertainment, etc, etc, etc.

Again, thank you, Jack, for pushing the passion button that made me think again about what I am doing to promote liberty. Please understand that I still consider nuclear power to be the current best way out of our energy troubles but I see now that that is not the best place to expend my energies. So instead of being against a source of energy or the system that keeps us from using best practices, I am going to have to get back into educating people on the pros of grassroots action in everything they do. Convince them that nanny government is not the source of innovation and lower prices and the things that increase their quality of life, they are - or the networks of people they associate with are.

I was doing that before I got to NH with the vegetable oil powering my car. I lost sight of that when I allowed myself to get drowned in all of the networks vying for my energy. Now that I have a chance to slow down and look I will begin again to teach people how to make their imaginings come true.

Thank you, Jack, for your "getting back to basics" education.

Thank you, Jim and Lauren, for your "putting imagination into action" education.

Thank you, Russell and Kat, for your "living life without permission" education.

Thank you, everyone in NH who took me to the edge of the cliff and let me see that I can't hold back everyone from falling off but that I can teach a few people how to keep from falling off and they in turn can help others.

[John Edward Mercier]

If no government existed, the owner of any property with sufficient funds could build/purchase their own nuclear plant... much the same as one would solar/wind/micro-hydro.

And what about the liability if an accident should occur?
How can you expose future generations to the risk without their direct consent?

The truth is that since solar/wind/micro-hydro are largely unregulated... they should be able to easily compete against regulated sources... but that doesn't seem to be the case.

You are missing the point. Privilege is the other side of regulation.

Remove all government regulations and privilege - which shifts externalities to third parties, and the more "green" solution will always win on economics.

Ron Paul wrote on this one. He feels that doctors should not purchase liability insurance. That patients that wish to do so should purchase 'negative consequences' insurance. Thus individuals would purchase insurance if they chose to deal with the negative consequences of their surrounding. Remember there would be no government to arbitrate, force arbitration, or enforce restitution on the nuclear plant owner.

[John Edward Mercier]

...
How do we satisfy the growing demand for electricity?

We, as libertarians aren't in the "satisfying growing demands for electricity" business. We're in the ethics and protecting people's rights bidness.

If you mean we, as a collective, a nation, etc., we, as libertarians aren't in the collective business, either. We're in the protecting individual's rights to be free from someone else's concept of "we" and "what we ought to do.", eh?

So how did the Clam's protect the property rights of the plant owners... or don't their rights matter?

[BillKauffman]

He feels that doctors should not purchase liability insurance. That patients that wish to do so should purchase 'negative consequences' insurance. Thus individuals would purchase insurance if they chose to deal with the negative consequences of their surrounding. Remember there would be no government to arbitrate, force arbitration, or enforce restitution on the nuclear plant owner.

The analogy doesn't quite work because I make a choice to seek the help of a doctor and only I suffer the consequences - there are no negative externalities as there are with nuclear power.

[John Edward Mercier]

Point well taken.
But what if every source of electricity had an externality for at least a small group?

And not a plausible one... but an actual one?

[BillKauffman]

what if every source of electricity had an externality for at least a small group?

And not a plausible one... but an actual one?

What is the actual externality to solar or energy conservation?

[John Edward Mercier]

Well, conservation isn't an actual source of energy.
But for solar (and conservation is some regards), materials had to be mined, processed, manufactured, and transported. Then there is potential loss... as the shaded area no longer has access to it normal solar gain.

There is no 'free lunch'.

[BillKauffman]

Well, conservation isn't an actual source of energy.

What is the difference in your mind between a BTU produced and a BTU saved?

But for solar (and conservation is some regards), materials had to be mined, processed, manufactured, and transported. Then there is potential loss... as the shaded area no longer has access to it normal solar gain.

There is no 'free lunch'.

Solar gain thru the windows on the southside of my house is a "free lunch". There is no "shaded area" in this application and no additional materials mined, processed, manufactured, and transported.

[David]

They're only subsidized by government... under government guidelines.
If no government existed, the owner of any property with sufficient funds could build/purchase their own nuclear plant... much the same as one would solar/wind/micro-hydro.

The truth is that since solar/wind/micro-hydro are largely unregulated... they should be able to easily compete against regulated sources... but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Hydro power is incredably regulated.  Remember, this is the country that demands permits to change a pond or 'wetland' on your own property. 

...
How do we satisfy the growing demand for electricity?

We, as libertarians aren't in the "satisfying growing demands for electricity" business. We're in the ethics and protecting people's rights bidness.

If you mean we, as a collective, a nation, etc., we, as libertarians aren't in the collective business, either. We're in the protecting individual's rights to be free from someone else's concept of "we" and "what we ought to do.", eh?

So how did the Clam's protect the property rights of the plant owners... or don't their rights matter?

Sure they have property rights.  But I have the right of self defense. 
Stuff breaks down, accidents happen.  Folks here can blame the communists till the sun dies, but there have been 'accidents's both in the US, and elsewhere. (Vermonts Yankee nuke plant seems to be having a string of them.)  No big ones here in the USA, but untill medicine creates a perfect human, you can never rule it out.  There is no way in the Amphibian Rotini monsters green earth that you can ensure safety of a nuke plant permanently, nevermind the waste.  I do not believe a person has the right to own, (property rights) something for which if a 'accident' occurs they could never provide compensation for.  Nuke bombs fit in the same scenario.  Thus I have the right of self defense, and kudos to the clam shell people.  An 'accident' in a nuke plant is a crime against humanity.  (W's 'small tactile nukes' he casually threatens Iran with is a crime against humanity too)

I expect people like me that believe no person has the right to 'own' an accidental crime against humanity, to lose the arguement...till the next big accident or two (It may take a few 'accidents').  Then people like me will effectively shut down most of the nuke plants worldwide. 

[J’raxis 270145]

The reason libertarians oppose nuclear power is that it wouldn't exist in the free market - no one would insure it. The only reason the industry exists in the US is because of the Price-Anderson Act, of which was stated:

Price-Anderson successfully removed the deterrent to private sector participation in the nation's nuclear power programs.3

or, from the Wikipedia article:

At the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power — this was because investors were unwilling to accept the then-unquantified risks of nuclear energy without some limitation on their liability.

That Wikipedia goes on to talk about how the Price-Anderson act first required the nuclear plant builders to purchase insurance, and only then indemnified them beyond that. It's a classic case of the government using aggression to try to fix a mess they made with prior aggression.

In a truly free market, insurance wouldn't be required, and someone would surely be brave (or perhaps foolish, if the plants really are as unsafe as some believe) to build one without insurance. I imagine that after the first uninsured plant was built, either one of two things would happen: Either there'd be no incidents, in which case other more timid investors would be emboldened to support the building of new plants, or there'd be an incident, in which case such investors would be permanently scared off of future investments in nuclear energy. (This is of course a gross simplification, but I think it captures the essence of how a truly free market would work.)

[J’raxis 270145]

I do not believe a person has the right to own, (property rights) something for which if a 'accident' occurs they could never provide compensation for.

You can never provide complete compensation for a single killing of another human being. So you want to take away everyone's firearms... knives... automobiles... hammers... and all other property that could be used to kill someone?