No problem. I just wish government would stay out of the economy and let it be a truly free market.

Bad choice of words on my part. I just wondered if you were making a point about monopoly = state-owned.
The wiki reference says state-owned OR regulated utility monopolies. A local example, the Milestone Plant in Waterford, CT was owned by Northeast Utilities (now Eversource), and sold to Dominion. These may include regulated monopolies, but they are not owned by CT or the USG. I haven't found an example of a state or USG owned reactor in the US (quite modest search so far). Perhaps the wiki statement refers to ones in France, Korea, China and/or Japan.
Sorry I sounded pointy. Wasn't my intention.

I wasn't arguing anything. I just wondered if nuclear power was cost-effective or not. I have no problem with nuclear power per se. I don't like government subsidization or ownership of businesses, or granting of monopolies, which all involve force and encourage inefficiency. (Patents are a separate question. Utilities aren't granted a monopoly to provide power in a certain area because they invented anything. There's probably some public safety excuse given to justify utility monopolies, but it's more likely that politicians agree to keep competitors out in exchange for contributions or bribes.)

You said, "This does not support the government ownership of nuclear power plants..." I understand the Wikipedia reference to "state-owned... utility monopolies" to mean government-owned utilities. Does "state-owned" mean something else to you?

And you had written previously, "All said, no nuclear power plants do make money." But now you wrote, "yes they do make $." I guess the first one had a typo? I think from the chart you linked before, it showed that the cost of nuclear power was greater than the cost of using coal or gas, but I'll take your word for it if you say it's profitable.

Yes, but all present power companies operate under a monopoly. Are you arguing against a government granted monopoly, (e.g. patent, et al), or against nuclear power.
This does not support the government ownership of nuclear power plants (not so) or their commercial viability (yes they do make $).

From Wikipedia: "To date all operating nuclear power plants were developed by state-owned or regulated utility monopolies[13] where many of the risks associated with construction costs, operating performance, fuel price, and other factors were borne by consumers rather than suppliers. Many countries have now liberalized the electricity market where these risks, and the risk of cheaper competitors emerging before capital costs are recovered, are borne by plant suppliers and operators rather than consumers, which leads to a significantly different evaluation of the economics of new nuclear power plants." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pow...

So, current plants were built either by a government or by a company granted a monopoly which allowed it to pass costs on to the consumers. If it's changing now, it will be interesting to see if it becomes more or less profitable.

Please do post your analysis!

Clearly the government does not build nuclear plants. They are more often owned by a power company.

The problem with nuclear power is that the cost of generation are about 60-70% fixed costs, from building the plant. Therefore all the cost is upfront, the opposite of a gas turbine plant.

Below is a link to the cost of various power generation methods from different sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_o...

Nuclear power would be fine, if people were not so afraid. The Navy operates ~300 nuclear power plants on submarines and aircraft carriers, and has never had a significant incident, since the first in 1954.

The first nuclear submarine, the Nautilus SSN571, was commissioned in 1951, then designed, then built in 18 months, delivered in 1954. Today the present attack submarine, the Virginia Class, design began about 1992, the first ship was delivered in 2004. So to do the first one took 3 years, but to design and build the recent one takes 12 years. Of course there are good reasons for some of this, including complexity and capability; however, fear of failure/ lack of confidence, conservatism also contribute to our new, slow pace.
I bring this example, because it parallels commercial nuclear power. These plants are really not that complex, but we are more and more risk adverse, breeding layer after layer of oversight and fear of making a decision, all equaling cost.

All said, no nuclear power plants do make money. They typically operate a full load continuously, and let the variable load be carried by other power plants with more variable cost.

I heard that there had never been a profitable power plant, and that's why only governments build them and not the private sector. Do you know if that's true?

A good Engineer is a scientist and a good Scientist is an Engineer.
I have been a Mechanical Engineer for 43 years.
I love thermodynamics, heat transfer, and Engineering Design. I understand the Science of Man-Caused Global Warming. I consider it to be Political Science rather than a true science. It is definitely politically motivated.

One big difference between Climate Science and other Sciences is that Climate Scientists are all employees of the government. They depend on governments for their existence.

I consider that Climate Science is an example of "Crony Science". These scientists have created a problem to justify their hand-out from the government.

The only reason that I can see for the promotion of this fraud is that it will enable the governments to gain complete control of the energy sector of the world's economies. When this happens, our last vestige of freedom will be gone.

Of course, I love science and have great respect for scientific achievement.

In my website,Iwww.texanhomeenergy.com I will be disclosing my research into the inadequate temperature data set and how it was manipulated to obtain their goal.

As our economy is controlled by the governments, Climate Science is also controlled and manipulated by the governments. It is "Crony Science",

and simultaneously making the two political parties appear divided when they are really united in power madness,

I think that dividing the people on as many fronts as possible is a subliminal political agenda.

That is a GREAT write-up!
And without those kinds of well-designed and -controlled experiments, it's still not Proof of Danger, just non-proof of Safety.

I'd strongly encourage Monsanto or independent researchers to DO such controlled experiments BEFORE concluding that those things are killers, dangerous, toxic, etc.

Keep the 'hot words' out of the conclusions UNTIL there ARE 'conclusions.'

Wow... sounds a little like MMGW and a few other seriously 'debated' topics, eh?

Agreed, there has to be an acceptable standard established for long term testing or its a wasted exercise with a moving target. As for your question on eating the seeds or the plants grown from the seeds, the argument that I have heard is about Roundup ready plants.The presence of glyphosate in roundup ready crops has been described as a possible cause of health problems that requires futher testing.
One critique of Monsanto's Roundup ready GMO testing:
http://www.psrast.org/subeqau.htm

And I love the old joke that says that after about ten generations of using acetylsalicylic acid, everyone becomes infertile!!

Because aspirin hasn't been in use "long enough" to prove that isn't true..

When critics start specifying what "long term" would satisfy them, I'll be happy and very surprised. Never happens, though...

In other words, can they tell us what Kind of Proof or What Exactly would convince them that GMOs are "acceptably safe"?

Never happens. Much better to be intentionally vague so the measurement can be changed to maintain the disapproval...

I've asked over and over why GMO SEEDS are so bad if the SEEDS aren't eaten... but the plants GROWN from those seeds ARE the ones that are eaten! Some kind of lack of "scientific proof" if that little step gets lost in the shuffle, eh?

Whatever... What do I know.. My engineering training must be irrelevant.... :)

You seem to have taken these comments somewhat personally, but I do not think you have said anything to argue with what I consider the important aspects of the argument. Namely, supposedly scientific comments must be read very skeptically. The two main concerns pointed out are that scientist are very subject to political (politically correct) and funding pressures, and they are somewhat separated from the real world. Personally, I think the first concern is the greatest as we have seen years and years of politically correct "science". The public rightfully looks at claims made by private companies in a skeptical manner assuming there is some profit motive behind it, but the public is often missing the boat in understanding that scientist are under similar pressures and should also be viewed skeptically.

All that said, I love science! I just think you need to review everything through a very skeptical mind before believing any of it.

I think that most of the uproar against GMOs is pointing out that real long term studies were never done and that evidence is mounting that some GMOs are not as safe as claimed by Monsanto. The fact that Monsanto appears to be buying immunity via congress critters adds another reason for suspicion that safety was exaggerated in the very limited studies that Monsanto relies upon. At least that's the way I read the evidence. Anti-GMO articles are admittedly sometimes as exaggerated in their conclusions as the safety was in Monsanto's studies. The evidence isn't there to suspect all GMOs as harmful, but long trem studies are needed. Monsanto in particular is continuing to promote products (Roundup and related seeds) and to manipulate congress to protect Monsanto from the liability of using those products. Instead Monsanto should be trying to scientifically prove them safe for long term use. Based on the latest limited studies, that proof appears to be unlikely and Monsanto's actions reprehensible.

Sorry, Zarkoff. I am not going to vote Thumbs Down, but I must take issue with your easy way with words. Although you backpedal with, "I am not anti-scientist" your other opinions come through much louder. "... it should have been a "theory vs reality" study. ... Engineers are the scientists "redneck cousins", who have to live in the real world and produce the wonders decreed by the scientists as to be expected, from the results in their antiseptic laboratories. ... I am somewhat less worshipful of "scientists" than most. ... the scientist doesn't have to produce a product someone might be held accountable for. ... "

It would be equally and oppositely unfair to say that engineers are tinkerers who do not understand what they are doing. Engineers only make small changes to things that have worked for years or centuries. Engineers tend to be religious and therefore superstitious. And so on... Oh, and, yes, I am not anti-engineer...

The fact is that engineering is largely anonymous, whereas scientists typically put their names on their works when they publish papers. It is also a fact that sociology textbooks devote more space to the scientific method than do physics textbooks. See "Is Physics a Science?" here on my blog: http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2012/...

That said, you are correct in your implication that wonderfully engineered gadgets very often have _not_ come from the application of scientific theory. Historically, science advanced after engineering. Science explained the theory behind the incremental and empirical creations of engineers. We had steam engines 150 years before we had thermodynamics. Still, in our world today, more engineered products are the result of advances in scientific theory than in the past. Electronics and computing are easy examples.

It is important to remain objective and not create false dichotomies.

Thanks! I went to the Pew website and downloaded the entire report. The story from Earthlink was a nice precis, but having all the facts is important - and in this case, both entertaining and enlightening.

Great post! I agree with all of it. Being an engineer & entrepreneur with parents of an engineer and scientist I jibe with all of this.

I jibed with Atlas Shrugged in a similar way as well when it talked about the State Science Institute.

and what percentage of each has participated in a double-blind controlled experiment to determine the risks or damage FROM eating GMO'd foods or crops treated with pesticides?

If 10% of the risks being claimed were valid, a LOT more of us would be dead already from exactly those causes, but it looks like we're not.

Red Rice and river blindness as another argument AGAINST GMO foods? Morons!

Nope, you're just surrounded by cults and religionists, for which facts are dangerous and/or irrelevant.

I've collected some links and quotes about the MMGW 'debate' at http://www.plusaf.com/lessons/globalwarm... and I try to have as many references as possible from thinkers who do NOT have an axe to grind or a dog in the fight...

I would like to see this study. You can be sure that the sampling of "scientists" is not unbiased when they say such things as global warming is primarily caused by man.

How about getting the facts into everyone's hands and see where the opinions fall? And, of course, that requires government to take politics out of the equation.

Yeah, and maybe that's just another 'cycle' like all the others, too. I tend to consider every fad and 'new direction trend' to be indicative of some cycle approaching its own extreme... with periodicity of anywhere from about 5 to20 years, on average.

But do you need to be a scientist OR engineer (like me) to look at the graphs from the Vostok Ice Cores and easily conclude that we're approaching the next Major Ice Age?!

Ah, but what do I know? I don't have Ph.D. after my name... :)

Climate changes over long periods of time.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/Sunspo...
The ice caps on Mars also undergo changes, and the last I checked, there are no combustion engines on Mars.