Would you support nuclear power if it was run by the government?

[Merchant Marine]

President Obama's energy announcements have brought the nuke debate back into the spotlight recently. One of the things I've been noticing is a general distrust of private industry to run nuclear plants, as well as reasonable doubt that the companies guaranteed loans will ever complete their construction.

Would you support nuclear power more or less if it was a government program? Instead of giving money to utilities companies the government would pay for the plants, build them on federal land, perhaps on or next to military bases, and run them with government personnel, such as the Army Corps of Engineers. The government then sells power to the grid and pockets the profit for the general fund.

Should the government have a monopoly on nuclear power in this country? Would you trust the government to be the stewards of the civil side of the atom, since they already control the military side?

[hlthe2b]

1. by the French Government?

perhaps.... Ours? I'd have to think on that...

[MadHound]

2. No, same problems

What to do with the waste, how to prevent human error, choosing a form of energy that is more expensive than green alternatives, the environmental and human toll of uranium mining.

Oh, and with our government these days how can you confidently say that corporations won't be operating them. After all, our government is already bought and paid for, and is only going to become ever moreso.

[upi402]

3. when they get "NukeAway!" then I'll support the guy down the street havin' it

no text

[Bobbieo]

4. No way!!! Not after what was done at the Nevada Test site for some 20 years.

[Oregone]

5. No. Every dollar sunk into it is a dollar neglected from other cheaper & safer green energies

I actually don't have my panties in an uproar over nuclear power, and I really think it would be great to see socialization of the energy sector (this really isn't the current direction though, but rather loans to private for-profit industry).

The problem comes right down to cost, maintenance, and the amount of time to build them. At the end of the day, it very well may not be the cheapest deal out there at the moment, and therefore wasted resources. Diversification is fine, but its tough to justify the bottom line.

[JCMach1]

6. Ummm, no

[ddeclue]

7. yes .. LOL what do you call the United States Navy?

The government knows quite a lot about running nuclear reactors.

:P

[JDPriestly]

8. I do not like nuclear energy, period.

But if we must have nuclear energy, it should be run and owned by the government. The profit should go to the taxpayers. It should not be yet another way to create a profit-center for the greedy. It should be owned by the government. All costs including the costs of storing nuclear waste should be paid out of the proceeds from the sale of the energy that the nuclear power plants produce. There should be no big profits to private interests. There should be no shifting of the enormous external costs that nuclear energy involve on taxpayers while investors take profits.

[krispos42]

9. The US government has a better safety record than the corporations.

Dozens of nuclear reactors are operated by the US Navy now, with dozens more in years past from now-retired vessels, and I don't think any of them ever had an accident with the reactor.

[Angleae]

10. TSA is run by the government.

You want those morons running a nuclear plant?

[Raine]

11. NO ... I won't support it NO WAY, NO HOW ... PERIOD nt

:mad:

[Journeyman]

12. You mean, run it as well as, say, the Hanford Site, the most contaminated nuclear site in the US?...

What about the federally run Hanford site inspires your admiration? The release of significant amounts of radioactive material in the air and the Columbia River over the decades? The 53 million gallons of high-level radioactive waste that remains on the site? Or was it the policy of holding contaminated water in temporary storage tanks for hours at a time before they released it surreptitiously into the local water supply? Does the thought of nuclear contamination from Hanford to the Sea, the contamination of a swath of land half the width of Washington State, send a chill up your leg? It does for the parents whose children live along those banks.

Eh. You seem to believe the government has control of its nuclear shit on the military side. You'd do well to read a little more on that score, too.


If I should remark that in the Pacific depths
bubbles trickle ominously through concrete boxes,
what would you answer?

~Evan S. Connell, Points for a Compass Rose, 1973

[MercutioATC]

13. Nope.

Whether run by a group of people who's sole motivating force is profit or a group of people who's sole purpose is checking boxes regardless of the product they create, I don't believe nuclear power is the way to go.

[Toots]

14. It pretty much already is as are all Utilities

Utilities may be called Private but they can not do a thing without the government giving it's approval. They can not raise rates nor put in new lines or pretty much anything at all except hire new secretaries and linemen.