Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

joshcryer

(62,536 posts)

6. Good.

Reply to kristopher (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 05:17 PM

Dec 2011

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

NYT - Japanese Government Says Decommissioning Fukushima Reactors Will Take 40 Years [View all] hatrack Dec 2011 OP

Notice there is no mention of cost in the NYT piece... kristopher Dec 2011 #1

1.151 trillion yen Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #2

But what did they cost to build in the first place? OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #3

Since the public is going to have to pay eventually, TEPCO's shareholder value should disappear now Kolesar Dec 2011 #4

TEPCO appears to be on track to be nationalized kristopher Dec 2011 #5

Good. joshcryer Dec 2011 #6

Transferring liability to the public is good? kristopher Dec 2011 #8

Which way do you think the job will be done better? OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #10

If a for-profit company does it under proper regulatory oversight. kristopher Dec 2011 #11

How soon did you want work to begin? OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #12

I'm not sure of your point kristopher Dec 2011 #13

Well, this is the model you said you prefer, a for-profit company with government oversight OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #15

I think you'd eventually have a raft of problems just as bad as you now see. kristopher Dec 2011 #17

Well, I think the motivations are different here OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #21

True. kristopher Dec 2011 #22

Actually after considering it a bit I see a problem. kristopher Dec 2011 #23

Lack of funding isn�t a problem OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #31

Anything that is legislated can change. kristopher Dec 2011 #32

And your point here would be? OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #33

It isn't black and white thinking kristopher Dec 2011 #34

�Anything that is legislated can change.� OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #35

Apparently you've lost the ability to reason... kristopher Dec 2011 #36

Does this describe the view you are laying out? kristopher Dec 2011 #14

The lead paragraphs sums it up nicely OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #16

I can see that perspective. kristopher Dec 2011 #19

Why should anyone profit off of a major disaster? tinrobot Dec 2011 #25

You have it wrong. kristopher Dec 2011 #29

To play Devil's Advocate here XemaSab Dec 2011 #30

Nuclear shouldn't be in the hands of for-profit corporations. joshcryer Dec 2011 #18

And energy shouldn't be in the hands of governments that amass power over people. kristopher Dec 2011 #20

Profit always trumps environment. Strong regulations can help... joshcryer Dec 2011 #24

What energy sources? Nuclear? kristopher Dec 2011 #28

Of course... letting the likes of Enron run wild makes perfect sense. tinrobot Dec 2011 #26

Nothing I wrote endorses that. kristopher Dec 2011 #27

They've been decomissioning Hanford pscot Dec 2011 #7

Hanford, the gift that keeps on giving... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #9