The Shadows Devour You.
What do we do, break 'em up? Nationalise the bastards?
Actually for nuclear plants that might be an idea...
The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.
According to my Physics textbook, all the nuclear plants in Britain ARE nationalised.
I changed accounts.
Knock the American populace upside the head with the idea that Three Mile Island isn't going to happen again, and that the thing in Japan wasn't nearly as bad as it looked. Add to this regulation so that Three Mile Island doesn't happen again, and once the United States starts using it more it'll become more widespread on its own.
I don't know how Russia would feel about it, though. They've seen way worse than Three Mile Island...
I am now known as Flyboy.
Establish a group of super loyal secret police who have to follow around nuclear inspectors with a gun to their back to ensure honesty?
I'd be all for nationalizing nuclear energy, we can't trust Corporations to do things honestly.
I changed accounts.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Good luck getting that through the House and Senate, though... It would go down in flames amidst cries of "Socialism!" and "Stalin and Marx would be proud!" Fuck you, American Cold War mentality, fuck you. Oh, and McCarthy. Hate that guy...
edited 5th Jul '11 3:40:03 PM by USAF713
I am now known as Flyboy.
That's what black budgets are for. 
Then you just make them federal agents attached to the Department of Energy, so that they have full rights of arrest and the right to carry a weapon.
edited 5th Jul '11 3:41:34 PM by Barkey
I changed accounts.
I meant the nationalization. I'm sure the monitoring agents would be much easier to get through...
Ironically, America needs to meet heavy demand from the use of nuclear power plants. Hell, it uses the highest % of total energy made from fission plants.
But then again... do your politicians know that?
Hell, do our politicians care about the environment either?
I changed accounts.
The problem with environmental laws in the US is that the current ones are implemented poorly, which colors the view of the public in regards to newer ones. Not to mention that it's simpler to implement environmental laws for a country the size of, say, Britain than one the size of the United States. The single largest problem, too, which is car exhaust, can't be touched, because voters respond to demands that cars should be smaller and be used less by laughing you out of office in a heartbeat. Alternate energy for cars is needed.
As for nuclear energy, there was a general freak-out about that with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, which has made nuclear power a joke in the US. It's rather sad. I think the answer is to appeal to nuclear carriers. Demonstrate that they've never had a (major) accident (I don't know if they've never had one, myself), and are the big lynchpin to the US Navy. It's an argument that I think would work well with the US populace...
I am now known as Flyboy.
The only argument imo that'd work well with the average american is convincing them nuclear energy could create jobs and even then they'd demand it be all about capitalism.
edited 5th Jul '11 4:01:09 PM by Midgetsnowman
Well, we've worked out that the populace are idiots. Of most OECD nations. Nations run by idiots, chosen by idiots, funded by idiots using idiotic ways.
I doubt any more 'green' bills would pass here within my lifetime. And I'm 15, so I have a long way to go. Our respective governments have to pander to bases - we have a centre-right party who isn't exactly 'green', and your GOP have banned the use of energy-saving bulbs in the House of Reps.
In other words, countries on both sides of the Atlantic are screwed if we don't push through 'green' agendas.
I changed accounts.
No, they'd actually probably be more strict about asking for regulation than any other industry. The industry itself, on the other hand, would demand it all be about capitalism. Besides, it wouldn't really create jobs, since it would be taking out other things like coal plants, so that argument isn't even really true...
I am now known as Flyboy.
The thing is though... once we manage to successfully harness fusion power - millions will be laid off.
What's the point of all these people, companies, drilling for coal, oil, gas? We've got the best energy source in the world. In terms of the economy, we ironically, have a vested interest in keeping down innovation in energy.
^ Incorrect. That only applies if you want to preserve current jobs. Nuclear fusion, if it is profitable (and a myriad of other things which I don't feel like listing) won't instantly obsolete those things. Furthermore, the laid-off workers can then begin work in other sectors, using the power of nuclear fusion. Economy doesn't encourage useless work.
^^ Thats generally when people start subsidizing industries to "save jobs"
9and usually destroy other jobs in the process)
I changed accounts.
Fusion will be The Singularity. However, Inhopelessguy, you fail to remember that fusion requires resources that, at best, we have to get to Saturn regularly for. Space travel just isn't there yet, and won't be for a long time.
I am now known as Flyboy.
"In distress", my ass.
Given the train wreck that is more than a few nationalized energy organizations (Gazprom in USSR/Russia, PDVSA in Venezuela, Pemex in Mexico, off the top of my head), as far as production efficiency goes, and the occasional bout of using a US government agency to attack the opposition to the party in power at the time, color me skeptical about nationalizing the US energy industry as being a good idea.
All your safe space are belong to Trump
The fuel is hydrogen, which we can get from water... if that's what you mean.
The process itself is diffucult. Fusion will certainly not be sustainable commercially within my lifetiem - and I'm 15.
I changed accounts.
There's that too. I would personally prefer regulation to nationalization, until the US Government gets its act together again... which won't be for a really long time...
Hm... I always thought Helium-3 was the only way to power fusion. Holy shit, I did it again! Sweet. I have a steampunk society using water as their fuel, because I thought, nobody will care if I don't explain how they're getting Helium-3 because water is good enough. I have a habit of introducing Hand Wave stuff and having it later become actually plausible because I find something else out. Wow... thanks, Inhopelessguy...
edited 5th Jul '11 4:35:03 PM by USAF713
I am now known as Flyboy.
Well, let's see, is there anything wrong with the TVA?
Nothing that I'd say isn't found in any number of other utilities.
One Winged Egret
Fusion can theoretically be done with any element lighter than iron. Well, it can also be done with heavier elements, but doesn't produce energy while doing so * . That's what happens in stars, which have ridiculous amounts of mass and therefore gravity on their side. For our purposes, we need to use lighter elements in very particular conditions which unfortunately take a lot of energy to generate. Last I checked, the main obstacle for fusion power was increasing the efficiency of the input energy costs.
edited 5th Jul '11 5:29:14 PM by Clarste
Yes. Next topic.
I liked it better when Questionable Casting was called WTH Casting Agency
I changed accounts.
Hm, fusion has suddenly become much more realistic than I thought it was. To return to topic, to say "corporations are the problem" anywhere is a loaded blanket statement. The problem is that they provide a required service. Another problem is that it's based on a resource (with regards to oil) that is supplied to the First World by geopolitical zones that don't like the First World. There are all kinds of problems with the energy supply industry, and that includes Europe as well as the US. Just like there are problems all over the world with everything...
edited 5th Jul '11 5:42:49 PM by USAF713
I am now known as Flyboy.
I see the Awesomeness.
Kind of late to the party. Regulation already exists that will prevent something like Three Mile Island from re-occurring, and modern nuclear technology means we can design reactors that can't, not won't, melt down.
USAF: there's more than one kind of fusion, which kind is sufficiently exothermic to be profitable is a bit more technical.
Fight smart, not fair.
The piece by George Monbiot.
On one hand, it's a good defence of 4th gen nuclear. But aside from that, it makes an interesting argument:
In this respect they are, of course, distinguished from the rest of the energy industry, which is run by collectives of self-abnegating monks whose only purpose is to spread a little happiness. How they ended up sharing the names and addresses of some of the nuclear companies is a mystery that defies explanation. The front-page story in Friday’s Guardian quoted “former government environmental adviser” Tom Burke saying the following about the government’s relationship with the nuclear companies. “They are too close to industry, concealing problems, rather than revealing and dealing with them.”(3) What the article did not tell us is that Burke currently works for Rio Tinto, one of the world’s biggest coal-mining corporations(4). It has, of course, always refrained from colluding with governments.
All the big energy companies – whether they invest in coal, oil, gas, nuclear, wind or solar power – manipulate politicians, bully regulators and bamboozle the public.