The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investment Analysis Clubs / Macro Economic Trends and Risks
|Subject: Re: The “second rent”||Date: 3/24/2013 7:47 AM|
|Author: bjchip||Number: 418730 of 506031|
We all know you hate nukes.
We don't follow the reasoning you use and don't come to the same conclusions, even though I am a Green. A member of the party here in NZ.
Yes, Nuclear Energy IS more expensive than subsidized fossil fuel energy.
It is not more expensive than renewable/sustainable sources where an energy storage component is required.
...NEITHER emit meaningful levels of CO2. BOTH entail other environmental problems.
...and crucially NEITHER will be built unless the subsidy to the fossil fuels is overcome. Either through subsidies on those forms of generation or a tax on CO2 emissions (my preference).
Germany needs its nukes and France needs ITS nukes, and your obsessive diatribes against nuclear energy have been duly noted...
We have to de-carbonize our power supply and break the power of the Koch brothers and ExXon et.al. NOW. Fully sustainable comes later but we have to survive now... and your obsession is not helpful.
Can I tie this to something actually relevant to METAR?
Well yes, I actually think I can.
As CO2 emitted continues to influence our climate and the problems become more "soon, salient and certain"-Revkin, the subsidy to the CO2 emitting power generators will be revoked, removed or in some other way cancelled out.
Companies involved in nuclear energy will then move up in value.
There isn't a tax, but there will be SOMETHING and when it shows itself
the fossil fuel based companies will suffer and the nuclear based power suppliers will prosper. If you are positioned accordingly, so will you.
When... not too much longer... I think you'd need a 10 year horizon to invest now. Others will have different guesstimates.
|Copyright 1996-2016 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|