The nuclear option

When I lived in Hong Kong in the 1990s, we were pretty worried about mainland China having a nuclear power plant not too far away, since the Chinese government then wasn't exactly known for its competence. But the plant was built by a French company that also operated it for at least the first few years.

There are companies with this expertise that could build the plants efficiently.

Posted by Ann | November 19, 2007 10:11 AM

Isn't giving reactors to the developing world a bit like giving candy to a baby, except not a normal baby but one raised inside a cardboard box.

Some how I think this decade will be full of these types of "swap out the carbon" suggestions, each one more disturbing than the next.

So without nuclear, a bit of extra carbon in the world's crib, and with nuclear, less carbon, more deformity, as the babies born from some massive nuclear disaster hit the world crawling on three legs.

Posted by Finn | November 19, 2007 10:18 AM

"Shouldn't we at least be thinking hard about safer reactors for the developing world?"

You can design in all the safety measures in the world, and corruption can undo them all. Before anyone funds nuclear power in Cambodia, there will need to be a stable government in place that shows that it is capable of eliminating corruption in at least a narrow field.

Poor countries are unlikely to use so much power that they generate significant greenhouse gasses. China and India do because they represent about ~30% of the world's population. A better course for development in poor areas with access to cheap coal would be a coal plant design that is easily reconfigurable for nuclear power. If they never hit the big time, the coal plants will meet their needs and have little impact on CO2 levels. If they do hit the big time, they will be able to afford the safety measures nuclear power demands.

There is discussion of converting coal to nuclear plants at relatively low cost here:

http://nuclearoil.com/site_index_page.htm#The_Coal_Yard_Nuke_Conversion_Pebble_Bed_Reactor

Posted by Njorl | November 19, 2007 10:37 AM

Please explain why we trust countries with nuclear that do things like put lead pain in children's toys to deal properly with nuclear waste....

Nuclear is anything but safe. Now we may be able to develop procedures for dealing with the production of the plant and waste safely, but that is only useful so long as those procedures are carefully executed in an expensive way.

Prime Directive anyone?

Posted by sam | November 19, 2007 11:33 AM

But wouldn't it be relatively easy to ensure that an outside contractor built and ran the nuclear plant? That's certainly cheaper for a country than trying to develop the technical knowledge and enginners. There are a number of reliable nuclear operators out there.

The only nuclear disaster to date has been Chernobyl, and that reactor used a design that was never allowed in the U.S. There are many safe and reliable designs that could be used.

There is no reason to be burning coal or oil when we could be using clean nuclear power.

Posted by Rex | November 19, 2007 12:02 PM

Some forward thinking, somewhat stable Asian nation needs to see this as an opportunity. 1) Make a deal with China to build some nuclear reactors. 2) Build big-ass transmission lines like they use to get electricity from Niagara Falls all over Canada. 3) Run those lines to Cambodia or Laos or Vietnam or wherever. 4) Sell sell sell.

We've managed to build a global economy around things that need to actually be picked up and put in boxes. Isn't it about time to figure out a way to do the same thing with stuff that's far easier and faster to send?

Posted by Mike | November 19, 2007 12:17 PM

Regarding the World Bank and nuclear energy, here is the horse's mouth:
Article on the only World Bank financed nuclear plant

Even this article doesn't clearly state "we don't do nuclear because X", but it does mention quite a few constraints.

Posted by Geoff | November 19, 2007 12:21 PM

I have a simpler solution. Let them burn fossil fuels, and don't worry about the carbon dioxide. By the time a nuclear plant could be built, the global warming silliness will have gone the way of bell-bottoms and eight-track tapes, and taken its rightful place alongside killer bees, nuclear winter, shark summer, the population bomb, and Y2K. We'll be at least one, and probably two or three, bogus scares in by then.

Posted by Occam's Beard | November 19, 2007 12:38 PM

"Some forward thinking, somewhat stable Asian nation needs to see this as an opportunity. 1) Make a deal with China to build some nuclear reactors. 2) Build big-ass transmission lines like they use to get electricity from Niagara Falls all over Canada. 3) Run those lines to Cambodia or Laos or Vietnam or wherever. 4) Sell sell sell."

You can get more money for the power in a forward thinking somewhat stable nation.

Posted by Njorl | November 19, 2007 12:42 PM

The World Bank cites catastrophe and cost as the two leading reasons that it does not support nuclear energy. (At least according to http://www.ecn.cz/c10/worldbnk.html.) There are many cheaper, safer alternatives.

Posted by DAS | November 19, 2007 1:07 PM

Nuclear weapons proliferation is a much, much more serious threat to the future of humanity than carbon dioxide overproduction and global warming. It's a shame that the demagogues have trumped up global warming into some sort of end-of-days doom fest because I think that puts us on a bad footing to address the problem appropriately. It's a serious issue and it needs addressing, but it's nowhere near (not by orders of magnitude) the seriousness of nuclear war, for example.

Posted by Robin Goodfellow | November 19, 2007 1:18 PM

Nuclear is anything but safe.

That's not true. I understand the fear of building nuclear plants in unstable, developing countries. But nuclear plants have an outstanding safety record. Competently run and with extreme diligence and oversight, there's no reason why any particular nuclear plant would fail.

Also, it's untrue to say that nuclear waste represents a major problem. Storage, long term, can become a problem, although not a major one. There are plenty of places where long term storage of nuclear waste can take place safely. And anyway, when people talk about waste, they tend to be afraid that containment of these materials is particularly difficult or expensive. It isn't. They simply need appropriate storage facilities. If global warming is anywhere close to the kind of looming disaster its sold to be, that seems an appropriate tradeoff.

Posted by Freddie | November 19, 2007 1:22 PM

Would you put one of these plants in Zimbabwe or the Congo?

Posted by ad | November 19, 2007 1:36 PM

I have a pile of coal outside my door. I throw a few lumps in the fire at night to keep my house warmer through the night.

I don't have a pile of plutonium sitting there.

I repeat. Nuclear is anything but safe. We may have procedures for dealing with it safely, but it certainly isn't inherently safe.

There's a reason why we're building a disposal site in the mountain the Nevada wants nothing to do with. It's dangerous as hell.

It may be extremely improbable that something will go wrong with waste disposale at Yucca Mtn but that doesn't mean we'll end up with a third world country dumping the waste in the river or burrying it in someone's backyard without using proper safe guards.

Posted by sam | November 19, 2007 1:56 PM

But Sam, 'Fifty Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong'!

Posted by Parker | November 19, 2007 1:58 PM

I am generally pro nuke power, but it would not work for Cambodia at this time. In addition to requiring sufficiently robust political culture to mitigate corruption as mentioned above, you need a large enough population that is technically proficient and educated in science and engineering to run the plant on a day to day basis.

For example, in Iraq, most of the problem with infrastructure like electricty and sewers, besides the outright sabatouge, is that most of the 'smart' people people have left and the the rest are mired in a hoplessly corrupt system. And they are only dealing with a system that is an order of magintude less in technical sophistication than even a basic nuke power plant.

Posted by Kenny | November 19, 2007 2:01 PM

ad: I'd put a PBMR or equivalent in Zimbabwe, if Zimbabwe wasn't such a basket-case that they'd just rip it apart and sell it for raw materials and scrap - or just let it rust.

A reactor that can't go critical is not very dangerous, all in all. Even if operated in an incredibly lax manner such that you let contaminated coolant out, the total radiation release is likely to be a wash compared to that released by burning coal for the same amount of power.

I'm with Freddie. Nuclear waste isn't barrels of green goo. It's mostly all solids, and it's not hard to store safely.

The paranoids worried about 50,000 years from now are offered the following solution: subduction zones.

Posted by Sigivald | November 19, 2007 2:02 PM

t may be extremely improbable that something will go wrong with waste disposale at Yucca Mtn but that doesn't mean we'll end up with a third world country dumping the waste in the river or burrying it in someone's backyard without using proper safe guards.

I was unclear before, so I should say that I think it probably isn't a good idea for Cambodia to start building nuclear plants, unless its under the direct oversight of a sponsoring nation. And even then, it seems risky to have a still struggling country in an unstable region with fissionable materials, etc.

But I have to point out the fact that you're simply wrong about the danger of post-use nuclear waste. It has been stored, transported and contained effectively and safely for decades. There has never been a dangerous incident with post-use nuclear waste since the beginning of nuclear power. The dangers we commonly associate with nuclear power are in the reactor process, and with anything approaching responsible use, those dangers, with modern reactors, are extremely, extremely low.

Posted by Freddie | November 19, 2007 2:03 PM

I repeat. Nuclear^H^H^H^H^H^H^H An automobile is anything but safe. We may have procedures for dealing with it safely, but it certainly isn't inherently safe.

Posted by Kenny | November 19, 2007 2:04 PM

Kenny,

In addition to the 2 automobiles sitting in my drive way, I also have 3 firearms in my closet and a drawer full of steak knives in my kitchen.

My family is as safe as can reasonably be expected.

Please do not try to replace anyone of those items with a "barrel of solid, non-green goo nuclear waste" as described above and convince me it is safe.

I'm actually not against nuclear power everywhere, but I am against it some places.

It's not unheard of to think that someone would consider, time, place and circumstance in their decision making ya know...

Posted by sam | November 19, 2007 2:25 PM

sam-
I apologize if a misunderstood your point in blanket statements like "Nuclear is anything but safe"; it may be trivally true, but grossly misleading. The computers we are using to type these posts have a lot of nasty chemicals used in the fabrication process, but no one expects to ban, say, sulfuric acid because it anything but safe. Industrial waste of all sorts is a problem, but not a technically insurmountable one.

As I said above, I agree with you in that Cambodia is not the place for a nuke power plant at this time. I just have an equal and opposite knee jerk reaction when I see something I perceive as a anti-nuke kneejerk reaction.

Posted by Kenny | November 19, 2007 2:50 PM

I have a pile of coal outside my door. I throw a few lumps in the fire at night to keep my house warmer through the night. I don't have a pile of plutonium sitting there.

Actually, you've got something much worse, but because you're casually familiar with it and can handle the raw materials with no short-term effects, you're apparently oblivious to what those effects are.

First, other than any possible effects of releasing CO2, high-temperature combustion can catalyze the production of ozone, which is a respiratory-distress pollutant when present in the lower atmosphere; incomplete combustion can release carbone monoxide to similar effects.

Second, coal contains considerably more than just carbon, even in anthracite form, and many of the byproducts are serious pollutants. Mercury, sulfur, and trace amounts of radioactive material are typical. The mercury is not yet scrubbed even on modern western plants and exits into the environment with the flue gasses, although scrubbing options are being explored and IIRC the EPA is looking into regulations to start requiring a mercury scrubbing process in the next ten years. In the heat of combustion, the sulfur content become sulfur dioxide gas. This has been scrubbed in western plants since the late 1970s to mid 1980s; if it enters the environmnet, it causes significant respiratory distress and can be dissolved into preciptiation to create acid rain. In a developing nation where scrubbing gear might be considered too expensive to maintain, all bets are off; coal burning might be very hazardous.

Third, coal contains substantial quantities of silicon. During combustion the carbon content is stripped away and the silicon content is reformed as silicates which, if they enter the lungs, can gradually accumulate to cause a hardening/fibrosis disease with possibility of cancer. Coal-fired power plants rely on pulverizing the coal before combustion, so the silicates come out as an extremely fine, light-weight flyash that can very easily be breathed if adequate containment and disposal measures are not undertaken.

What, again, were your complaints about nuclear? At least there, the waste accummulates very slowly and everyone KNOWS that it's somewhat dangerous, and is more likely to respect it accordingly.

Posted by anony-mouse | November 19, 2007 3:31 PM

"The computers we are using to type these posts have a lot of nasty chemicals used in the fabrication process.."

""Most e-waste in China comes from overseas, but the amount of domestic e-waste is on the rise," he said.

This ugly business is driven by pure economics. For the West, where safety rules drive up the cost of disposal, it's as much as 10 times cheaper to export the waste to developing countries. In China, poor migrants from the countryside willingly endure the health risks to earn a few yuan, exploited by profit-hungry entrepreneurs.

International agreements and European regulations have made a dent in the export of old electronics to China, but loopholes - and sometimes bribes - allow many to skirt the requirements. And only a sliver of the electronics sold get returned to manufacturers such as Dell and Hewlett Packard for safe recycling.

Upwards of 90 percent ends up in dumps that observe no environmental standards, where shredders, open fires, acid baths and broilers are used to recover gold, silver, copper and other valuable metals while spewing toxic fumes and runoff into the nation's skies and rivers.

"Most e-waste in China comes from overseas, but the amount of domestic e-waste is on the rise," he said.

This ugly business is driven by pure economics. For the West, where safety rules drive up the cost of disposal, it's as much as 10 times cheaper to export the waste to developing countries. In China, poor migrants from the countryside willingly endure the health risks to earn a few yuan, exploited by profit-hungry entrepreneurs.

International agreements and European regulations have made a dent in the export of old electronics to China, but loopholes - and sometimes bribes - allow many to skirt the requirements. And only a sliver of the electronics sold get returned to manufacturers such as Dell and Hewlett Packard for safe recycling.

Upwards of 90 percent ends up in dumps that observe no environmental standards, where shredders, open fires, acid baths and broilers are used to recover gold, silver, copper and other valuable metals while spewing toxic fumes and runoff into the nation's skies and rivers."

But, hey, let's worry about CO2..

This: "This ugly business is driven by pure economics.", though, is completely wrong, these decisions are driven by Finance, which are only a part of the, broader, Economic Calculation.

To the post's query, wasn't the blogista just mentioning the lack of Accounting awareness in this Economy that she now thinks a good candidate for Nuke power generation?

Posted by MEH | November 19, 2007 3:59 PM

A portion of the nuclear waste - the spent fuel - can be reprocessed for plutonium to make nuclear bombs, or the spent fuel and other especially "hot" portions of the waste could be combined with chemical explosives in dirty bombs. Other than that, it's no more dangerous than many byproducts and intended products of the chemical and metal-processing industries - but in a country with a recent history of murderously insane government, that's a huge exception.

Posted by markm | November 19, 2007 4:02 PM

anon,

I don't know if that was supposed to be satire....

Anyone who would claim coal is much worse or more dangerous than nuclear waste is off their rocker.

But don't take my word for it. Evidently the World Bank and I are in agreement.

Posted by sam | November 19, 2007 5:26 PM

Actually, sam, if you include the costs in lives of mining coal, coal is very clearly a lot lot more dangerous than nuclear power.

And his name is not "anon", but he is our own and dear anony-mouse, who has been with this site in all its incarnations dating back to Live at the WTC.

Posted by Rex | November 19, 2007 5:37 PM

I don't know if that was supposed to be satire....

So you admit to both ignorance and prejudice? That's quite an unforced error on your part.

Anyone who would claim coal is much worse or more dangerous than nuclear waste is off their rocker.

Nobody claimed that, but nice try. I said, in effect, that the health and environmental effects from running a coal-fired plant in a third-world regulatory environment are likely to be worse than those of running a nuclear plant, on the basis that (1) coal has the potential for substantial health and environmental destruction if the stack emissions and flyash are not handled competently and (2) the nuclear plant will receive more judicious attention (primarily, I should add, because the technology import requires a corresponding import of expertise to even get the construction off the ground, else the project will never be more than a pipe dream).

Whether or not Cambodia is the right place to be advancing either type of power generation infrastructure at the moment (as opposed to the alternatives, like the above suggestion of importing power), is another vital aspect of the debate, and I do not reject it. What I do reject is useless ignorant scare-mongering about the technologies themselves.

Posted by anony-mouse | November 19, 2007 6:01 PM

I think the US should get its power from a mix of all the different sources out there now, including coal and nuclear.

It's a shame some people are so fixated on nuclear that they'd pretend its the best solution for everyone, everywhere, and at everytime.

When a nation, its economy, its citizenery, its infrastructure, it's safety record, its corruption rate, reach a certain level, then I am in agreement with assisting them on nuclear plants.

Coal mine deaths are tragic. Car accidents are tragic. I suppose you could argue receiving UPS shipments is more dangerous than nuclear power based on that absolutely ridiculous assumption.

I'm not playing scarecrow here, but the simple fact is nuclear waste has the potential to be far more toxic for generations than coal or nearly any other fuel source.

This is not to say it shouldn't ever be used, but it should be used only under the most carefully defined circumstances.

Waste issues, failure issues, proliferation issues. Those are not trivial things that can be answered with a quick retort that, "let's get some outside contractors to run the place".

Posted by sam | November 19, 2007 6:04 PM

sam wrote: This is not to say it shouldn't ever be used, but it should be used only under the most carefully defined circumstances.

Fair enough, reasonable people can disagree over definitions of applicability. However as markm pointed out, there are numerous types of industrial chemicals and wastes that are easily as dangerous as nuclear waste. Many of them are also far more accessible and poorly regulated. Singling out the one in the world that is the most heavily regulated, requires substantial import of experties to do anything useful with, and tends to be produced in small quantities relative to useful output, strikes me as a bit short-sighted.

Posted by anony-mouse | November 19, 2007 6:14 PM

Anon,

You plainly stated, "you've got something much worse".

Then went on to state, "Nobody claimed that, but nice try".

I'm certainly not scaremongering by saying nuclear power is inherently dangerous. You are being intentionally deceitful if you claim otherwise.

It's also pretty clear that the long term catastrophic effects of failure or proliferation are far worse for nuclear than anything else.

The question it comes down to is risk management. I believe the developed world is better at managing that risk. I don't think the 3rd world is there, and any attempt to frame the discussion as "Shouldn't we at least be thinking hard about *safer reactors* for the developing world?" begs the question.

Well certainly if it's safe, as the question implies, then we should be for it. But it's not safe. It's dangerous. Highly dangerous. Dangers that some nations are able to handle...

On the other hand, I grant you coal certainly has some downsides. But I can't imagine someone claiming coal and nuclear are on the same level. I can go buy coal down the street. Please don't try to tell me the only reason why I can't buy plutonium anywwhere is because of scaremongers.

Your point that nuclear plants will receive more scrutiny is nice and all, but the fact remains that the more nuclear plants that pop up, (if we're talking about putting them in Cambodia, there will certainly be plenty of other places that have them too) the more likely a failure will take place.

FYI, fly ash is used by virtually every profit oriented coal plant. It's used in drywall and stucco. I know several truck drivers who make a living running from power plant to drywal plant all week long.

Now who is playing scaremonger with the technolgy?

Posted by sam | November 19, 2007 6:17 PM

You plainly stated, "you've got something much worse".

The way you are burning coal -- tossing it into an open fire -- is much worse than generating nuclear power. Long term and short term, using an electric heater powered by a nuclear plant would be a safer way to heat your living room.

It's also pretty clear that the long term catastrophic effects of failure or proliferation are far worse for nuclear than anything else.

It is far from clear. If global warming is a reality -- and Megan is basing her argument on the belief that it is -- then neither catastrophic nuclear plant failure nor proliferation is anywhere near the long-term risk that widespread third-world coal plant use would be. In the short term, however, it may be a greater risk.

I'm certainly not scaremongering by saying nuclear power is inherently dangerous.

You said "Nuclear is anything but safe". So apparently nuclear power isn't safe, but isn't dangerous either? Interesting dictionary you've got there.

You are being intentionally deceitful if you claim otherwise.

Or, you know, he's using English. There's that possibility.

FYI, fly ash is used by virtually every profit oriented coal plant. It's used in drywall and stucco.

Yeah, and there's a reason why you're supposed to wear a filter mask when cutting drywall and stucco.

Posted by Dan | November 19, 2007 6:27 PM

Dan,
The fly ash comment was in regards to Anons claim that it's a wasteful byproduct, and placing it on the same level as nuclear waste.

If I mention nuclear waste, and he says, well what about fly ash? That's a little disproportionate...

---

I'm certainly not scaremongering by saying nuclear power is inherently dangerous.

You said "Nuclear is anything but safe". So apparently nuclear power isn't safe, but isn't dangerous either? Interesting dictionary you've got there.

---

I think you read me wrong... I said nuclear is anything but safe, and I also said it was inherently dangerous. Not sure where the conflict is...

As far is it not being far from clear that long term potential for catastrophe from nuclear is worse than coal, I didn't realize construction had begun on our 10,000 year storage facility for coal waste?

I don't recall driving by a coal mine that was the site of hundreds of millions of dollars in cleanup work based on the radioactive levels? But I did drive by suck Uranium mine cleanup last year. And the year before. In fact, I remember driving by the same uranium mine cleanup for the last decade.

So please, don't try to sell me on this BS, "it's safe." It's not safe. It's dangerous and must be handled with extreme care.

Coal can be dangerous. There are issues with coal, just like computer parts, dust, and a wide variety of things if taken in excess.

But just because you have a thing for nuclear doesn't mean that anytime someone points out that it's dangerous and should be handled with care by responsible people with a proven track record are crazy...

Posted by sam | November 19, 2007 6:46 PM

For the amount of cash necessary to engineer and build and control a nuclear plant, very low-head hydro could be developed and installed.
"
If the river is a "river", and not a "dispersed flow" (otherwise known as swamp), power *can* be extracted.

Posted by bud | November 19, 2007 7:00 PM

Excellent collection of facts from anony-mouse. The burning of fossil fuels has many more immediate disadvantages than any implication in global warming. As do the extraction & sources of those fuels.

The French have been getting some 80-90% of their electricity from 60 or so nuclear facilities, w/o so much as a Three Mile Island-type incident, let alone anything truly dangerous. The greatest actual worry w/ N-waste is transporting the waste to the storage site.

So why not? Maybe the French could repay some of their debt to Cambodia by providing a few nuclear generating systems & the staff to run them safely & securely.

Posted by M. Bouffant | November 19, 2007 7:09 PM

sam,

this: "FYI, fly ash is used by virtually every profit oriented coal plant. It's used in drywall and stucco. I know several truck drivers who make a living running from power plant to drywal plant all week long." is a gross over-generalization, at best. There are many beneficial uses of fly ash, though most of it is Not used...

"Coal ash is one of the largest streams of solid waste in the United States and includes fly ash, bottom ash and air emission scrubber sludge. Analysis of the waste has found toxins including arsenic, mercury, chromium, cadmium, lead, selenium and boron that can cause deformities, reproductive problems and cancers in humans.

Each year, the nation’s 450 coal-burning utility plants produce more than 130 million tons of ash and dispose of it in 600 landfills and surface impoundments or lagoons. Pennsylvania produces more than 9.5 million tons of coal ash waste a year, more than every state but Kentucky, Texas and Indiana.

Nationwide, 40 percent of the landfills accepting coal waste and 80 percent of the impoundment lagoons do not have liners that would prevent pollutants from leaching into the groundwater. Fewer than half of the landfills and 1 percent of the impoundments have leachate collection systems."
http://penweb.org/news/?p=20

this doesn't even begin to mention the Mercury, released during combustion, that's doing a fine job of poisoning the fish in the seas, the birds in the air, and us, and everything else, on the ground..

this link:
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentID=3949&campaign=
has some good links to primary references, as well...

Posted by MEH | November 19, 2007 7:21 PM

But just because you have a thing for nuclear doesn't mean that anytime someone points out that it's dangerous and should be handled with care by responsible people with a proven track record are [sic] crazy...

Seems as if you have an "anti-nuclear thing" as much as any one has a "pro-nuclear thing." Certainly no one is advocating playing free & loose w/ atomic materials.

Please don't try to tell me the only reason why I can't buy plutonium anywhere is because of scaremongers.

Well, there isn't much of a market for it, for one thing. Even if we all had backyard reactors, (not that I'm suggesting it, mind you) you wouldn't need to replace your plutonium very often.

Posted by M. Bouffant | November 19, 2007 7:30 PM

Proliferation issues? What on earth does that mean? You CANNOT get material for nuclear bombs from running a nuclear power plant.

As for realistic sources of energy, they are quite limited: coal, gas, nuclear, and to a much more limited extent, hydro. There simply aren't any others which can provide the megawatts needed almost anywhere in the world. They all have drawbacks. Hydro is limited by geography. Coal is limited by fuel supply and disposal of waste by-products. Gas is limited by fuel supply--shipping gas overseas puts it in the form of LNG which has its own drawbacks. Nuclear is limited mainly by the scare factor--I don't consider the waste to be a real problem because of the very limited quantity. All you have to do is secure it properly. In fact, the quantities are so limited that power plants are just keeping it on-site for now--there are no space issues involved like there are with coal by-products.

What the Yucca Mountain facility is supposed to do is make it so secure that it would be safe even if civilization falls apart. Perhaps if coal by-products were held to the same standard, it would make the comparison easier to grasp.

Posted by Rex | November 19, 2007 7:44 PM

In the 1960 the US declared that soon electricity will be free like local calls due to nuclear energy. What happened - why have we not build a single plant in almost 30 years?

Why are countries like Switzerland (on par with France regarding per capita kWh of nuclear energy production) and Germany fading out nuclear?

Who has financed the French nuclear plants and at what cost? What else does one need in case one goes monolithic (what is the total retail price of nuclear energy and not the mere base load price)?

I hope that Cambodia does get some help from China. But not regarding nuclear - rather from Mr Shi? The sun does shine in Cambodia?

It could also be applied in remote areas without waiting for a grid to pop up everywhere.

I give it max 1-5 years before the world understands why the small crappy computer on your desk is worth so much more than a mainframe! Then we will stop talking/writing like Xerox and IBM in the early 80s? Right now the small crappy computer is as expensive as in the 80s but we know that this changes quickly:

"We use the energy in China to manufacture these things, so we take the blame for using the energy in China then we ship them out of the country," says energy analyst James Brook.

But Shi is working on changing that and is committed to becoming the "lowest cost per watt" provider of photovoltaic solutions to customers worldwide

"When the cost comes down a little bit more, the market will be booming in China," Shi says.

Cambodia does not need mainframes (and does not need a huge copper cable infrastructure etc). Ideally it should leapfrog the livestock and dairy gluttony stage too or it might lose more than by jumping on oil, gas, coal for the short-run!

I know what Einstein would advice the world...

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | November 19, 2007 7:53 PM

I like the idea of solar power, really I do. It's just that, well, we don't have the technology to transform solar energy efficiently into electricity. We also don't have the technology to efficiently store the solar-generated electricity to move it from point A (where the sun shines a lot) to point B (where it doesn't).

Solar also takes up a lot of real estate. It's been estimated that it would take solar cells covering the entire State of Georgia to provide enough power for the U.S. That's a lot of space.

IF we make a major breakthrough in battery storage technology, or IF we make a major breakthrough in hydrogen storage technology, then PERHAPS solar or fuel cells would be the way to go. But we're just not there yet.

Posted by Rex | November 19, 2007 8:04 PM

"I like the idea of solar power, really I do. It's just that, well, we don't have the technology to transform solar energy efficiently into electricity." hmmm..

see: http://www.tatabpsolar.com/proj_showcase.html

based in India.

"We also don't have the technology to efficiently store the solar-generated electricity..." ! ?

Easy enough to pump water, with the 'excess' electricity, up and into a water tower, then, when needed, release the water, turning the pump into a generator...

"Solar also takes up a lot of real estate." Start thinking: Roofs, as in, Roofs cover alot of space...

Solar is best as a distributed energy production technology--Centralized energy production, with its attendant distribution costs/losses, is what needs to go...

Posted by MEH | November 19, 2007 8:31 PM

The sun does shine in Cambodia?

Well, my information may be incorrect as it is just about exclusively derived from Forest Gump, but I was under the impression that it rains a whole bunch in SE asia.

Posted by Kolohe | November 19, 2007 8:36 PM

Sam wrote: You plainly stated, "you've got something much worse".

And for all practical purposes, you do. The material isn't inherently dangerous; it's all in how it is handled, and the volume. Coal is easily accessed and easily used in ways that can produce dangerous byproducts. Versus radioactive materials in fissible concentrations? Uhm, not so much.

I'm certainly not scaremongering by saying nuclear power is inherently dangerous. You are being intentionally deceitful if you claim otherwise.

Okay, but this goes back to the argument that driving an automobile is "inherently dangerous". It's true, and can be backed up by a wealth of evidence, but also divorced from a wealth of relevant context.

It's also pretty clear that the long term catastrophic effects of failure or proliferation are far worse for nuclear than anything else.

Proliferation? You need to do more research on nuclear reactors. Most of them are not constructed to work with, or develop, weapons-grade materials. If your goal is to prevent anyone not on the Approved Vendors List from accessing any radioactive material at all, then I'm afraid the cat is already out of the bag on that one. Deposits occur all over the world, plenty of them under the feet of unscrupulous dealers. The trick is in getting the right materials in the right quantities with the right equipment, and persons with sufficient scientific training, to turn them into something useful for evil ends. Which, as Kim Jong-Il has demonstrated, is somewhat difficult even when you're an aspiring supervillain with designs of exactly that.

The question it comes down to is risk management. I believe the developed world is better at managing that risk. I don't think the 3rd world is there, and any attempt to frame the discussion as "Shouldn't we at least be thinking hard about *safer reactors* for the developing world?" begs the question.

This is reasonable, but it's coming awfully late in a discussion that is lacking a lot of knowledge.

And right about here---

Well certainly if it's safe, as the question implies, then we should be for it. But it's not safe. It's dangerous. Highly dangerous. Dangers that some nations are able to handle...

---is where charges of scaremongering start gaining traction again.

On the other hand, I grant you coal certainly has some downsides. But I can't imagine someone claiming coal and nuclear are on the same level. I can go buy coal down the street.

Do you understand that a large coal-fired facility can burn well in excess of 100 pounds of coal a second during peak demand hours? The substance itself is relatively innert and the pollutants in low-sulfur anthracite are only trace in quantity, but when a substance is consumed at those kinds of volumes, the effects concentrate rapidly. In western nations, we have methods for removing the worst of the pollutants from entering the atmosphere and are working on removing more; but if that kind of technology is operated in an environment where the power generation is considered pre-eminent and the environmental impacts are neglected, guess what...

Please don't try to tell me the only reason why I can't buy plutonium anywwhere is because of scaremongers.

You can't buy plutonium for the same reason you can't buy a hand grenade at the Home Depot: It is extremely dangerous and unnecessary to most modern human endeavours, including the operational supplies of a modern nuclear power plant.

Your point that nuclear plants will receive more scrutiny is nice and all, but the fact remains that the more nuclear plants that pop up, (if we're talking about putting them in Cambodia, there will certainly be plenty of other places that have them too) the more likely a failure will take place.

The more automobiles we allow on the roads...

FYI, fly ash is used by virtually every profit oriented coal plant. It's used in drywall and stucco. I know several truck drivers who make a living running from power plant to drywal plant all week long.

Sure, the silicates themselves are an innert substance, and are sometimes put to use in other products. You can also cast and bake them with a binding agent to produce decorative landscaping bricks. In other news, silicon is present in your computer and silicon dioxide is found in the sealant around your bathtub. It's not the substance, it's the volume, the condition, and the probability of whether it will be used and moved appropriately.

Flyash, suitably handled, is no more likely to cause lung problems for stucco company workers than your ocassional coal handling is likely to give you black lung disease. It's when you start dealing with massive quantities of it, improperly handled, that serious problems can arise. Coal-fired plants present ideal conditions for producing extremely large quantities of flyash, and if it blows randomly into dense population areas or runs into waterways, it will readily harm human lungs, destroy water supplies, and kill wildlife, especially over long-term exposure.

See also: statistical ownage regarding flyash and scrubbing byproducts in some of the above posts.

Now who is playing scaremonger with the technolgy?

You're setting yourself up big-time here, bud.

Note that I have no objection to the Cambodians obtaining power from coal. However I have no problem with them using nuclear generated power either, because the risks and rewards are not practically different.

Posted by anony-mouse | November 19, 2007 8:44 PM

MEH wrote: Centralized energy production, with its attendant distribution costs/losses, is what needs to go

Unfortunately, that idea is also misguided. For energy on the scale that western nations consume it, centralized systems gain enormous advantages from economies of scale, particularly when it comes to the hidden environmental costs associated with mining materials and producing the products needed to generate and convert power to usable forms. Also, across very large regions where the climate and demand profile is non-uniform, power distribution can be shifted around to meet the varying needs. To focus more on local generation, you would either have to do without during peaks or overbuild. The former has proven unpopular and the latter negates whatever net benefits you were hoping to gain by going local.

Further, localized systems also have losses, which usually increase disproprotionately at smaller scales; and worse, they tend to require storage and conversion devices that either contain unpleasant chemistry, or required a lot of it during manufacture. They can be advantageous when applied judiciously, of course, but the scope of applications where benefits outweigh costs is relatively limited.

Posted by anony-mouse | November 19, 2007 8:56 PM

Shall I be the unwashed heathen that everyone yells at to shut up? sure, why not...

Why, exactly, should we presume that the people of cambodia actually need to come up with things that use a lot of electricity to live their lives?

Just because we do? Now that we've taken that bull by the horns, we can't let go. We have an ever expanding thirst for things that require electricity, so we have an ever expanding thirst FOR electricity.

Right now the Cambodians don't need to do that... except. Except they are stuck in terms of their economy and it's expansion. Seems like there would be forward thinking people somewhere who would be able to figure out how to improve the standards of living there WITHOUT forcing them into the mold of most other countries in the world. IE. you must first have power, then heavy industries, then exports, then imports, blah, blah, yaketty, schmaketty.

If a country has some natural resource that is needed globally, sure, they can get on the global scene and export it. I don't see that the Cambodians, have anything that is hugely exportable. What they really need is the ability to improve how they live in their own way.

Based on the types of governments they have already had, does anyone really believe that providing them with a ransomable resource like electricity will improve the average life? Or will it become again, a way for someone who wants the power to rule everyone to rule them.

Dunno, just the standard thinking about what they need seems like a bad idea, that they will regret eventually. They might be able to leapfrog by looking to think on the next level instead. What does an individual household need to do to get by, rather than what kind of critical mass is needed for everyone to move off the farm to the city to work in a factory 10 hours a day so that they can pay taxes and have cheap TV.

are we asking the right question here?

Posted by D | November 19, 2007 8:58 PM

I don't recall driving by a coal mine that was the site of hundreds of millions of dollars in cleanup work based on the radioactive levels?

Ok, so you haven't noticed the costs of coal pollution. Was there a larger point you wanted to make, or were you just commenting on your lack of perception?

Coal can be dangerous.

Coal kills more people and causes more disease and pollution, per megawatt-hour produced, than nuclear power does. Coal IS more dangerous than nuclear power. There's no "can be" about it.

Posted by Dan | November 19, 2007 10:42 PM

"For energy on the scale that western nations consume it,..."

anony-, I hear you, I thought about some of those things before I let that last post fly.

No doubt there are energy demands, like Steel Making, Aluminium smelting, others, that are highly energy intensive/require large-scale generation facilities, but D, above, is asking some good Q's. Our, the U.S., current level of energy consumption is ill-inspired and tremendously costly, hardly a model that should be replicated. Simply, how may of our homes are constructed with any thought to thermal mass and/or passive solar? We have, currently, an Electricity Generation/Consumption model predicated upon wasting Hydrocarbons.

We should be asking more Q's, like D.
And, wondering why we're not utilizing Carbohydrates as a feedstock...
This crude chart: http://www.agri-therm.com/pyrolysis.htm lends a clue..
and utilizing more microturbines http://www.microturbine.com/
to produce electricity for loads that SolarPV can't handle...to say nothing of tapping more of the 'stored solar' beneath our feet...

Posted by MEH | November 19, 2007 10:54 PM

are we asking the right question here?

Well, what question would you rather ask? "Why don't we let the Cambodians remain in the 18th century? Why don't we make the Cambodians remain in the 18th century?" I don't think I prefer either one of those.

Posted by Kenny | November 19, 2007 11:38 PM

"To focus more on local generation, you would either have to do without during peaks or overbuild."

Local solar is uniquely suited to help meet peak demands for certain areas. I live in San Diego, and we mainly have power issues during hot summer days. Some local solar panels would be ideal to help reduce the transmission and production problems we face during those hours. It's not a solution for every part of the US, but for places that are sunny year around, solar can help energy consumption when the area needs it most. It will never replace coal/nuclear plants without a breakthrough in both energy storage and the amount of energy each cell produces.

Before we scale it up though, how much power does it take to create the solar panels anyways? Are we 100% sure we aren't spending more energy on making the things, then we get in return?

Posted by JordanT | November 20, 2007 12:11 AM

Our, the U.S., current level of energy consumption is ill-inspired and tremendously costly, hardly a model that should be replicated.

Well, political corruption is hardly something that should be replicated, either, and yet it keeps happening.

Nobody's asking "SHOULD the developing world use energy in a wasteful manner". The answer to that is, of course, "no". The question is, WILL they use energy in a wasteful manner, or will they voluntarily spend a lot of extra cash to be environmentally conscientious. The answer to that question is fairly obvious, don't you think?

Posted by Dan | November 20, 2007 2:13 AM

"I don't think I prefer either one of those" - Kenny

see, that's the rub... it isn't a question for you. You are already stuck. You already can't imagine living in any other way than you do now.
Is there a way to bring Cambodia forward to the 21st century without doing all the stupid stuff that we have done in between?

This is not to say that Cambodia were not starting to be firmly entrenched in modernity before they were knocked back by the Khmer Rouge, just that, it seems to be where they are now.

What part of modernity makes life better, and what part makes it worse, and is there a way to pick and choose? This is the central question to me, but it should be the Cambodians themselves that decide. Do they really want all the pollution that goes along with the heavy industries in the far east? What can they make and do that no-one else in the region does? Etc...

Improving their living conditions, housing and sanitation DOESN'T require lots of power and industry, but IS the key to heath and lifespan. Education is another key. But is it better to build an expensive school, or is it better to have local wifi, and each kid a laptop, and some local teachers to direct... without building a building? Those sorts of things can be solar powered without the need for much infrastructure.

Because if you think about it, how much energy do we spend on building infratstructure? We have done that infrastructure build because of the power/economy of scale, but that beast eats it young. In order to build power transmission lines, you have to have roads, and to build roads you have to have heavy equipment, and to have heavy equipment you must have money, and so on. What do you use that power for? Cheap TV.

I'm not saying it is up to us to deny them, but we shouldn't sugarcoat it either. It's easy to look at a whole country and say "you should do this..." But to a subsistance farmer who will have to go find some sort of job to pay his taxes, now that the government wants to build a power station, this makes his life much harder. We should be mindful that we don't end up re-impovrishing the people in order to make their lives "better". There are plenty of examples in the region already...

Posted by D | November 20, 2007 8:25 AM

Generally speaking, SE Asia has rain (daily, for about 2 hours of thundershower in the afternoon) for 6 months of the year, and then no rain for 6 months of the year.

MEH,

I used the word "efficiently" on purpose. It's a technical term. And I think you are underestimating the sheer scale of what would be needed to use solar power to replace traditional power sources. When I said that we would need solar panels covering the State of Georgia, I meant that literally--not just on the roofs.

Sure, alternative sources of energy can assist in total power generation, but there is no way they will ever become the major power source, let alone replace the primary generation methods.

Posted by Rex | November 20, 2007 8:35 AM

The only reason Cambodia shouldn't have nuclear power is that it's too dangerous and complicated for them to manage. Sometimes the obviously correct reason is too offensive to put out there, at least on a governmental or multilateral-organization level, but there it is. What to do, then? Turn lemons into lemonade, of course! Cambodia is starting from just about zero in terms of energy production, energy consumption, and what you might call "energy culture"--individual and social expectations of how to deploy energy to get things done, not to mention what you want to do in the first place. It would be a great test bed for every green technology in the book--you know, the ones that exist or are close to existing, but which don't have much traction in wealthy societies because they would be too dislocating to how we do things, and because we've sunk too much money into the infrastructure for our current energy habits.

Not to get all Khmer Rouge, but Cambodia sounds like it's in Year Zero for energy issues, and that represents a great opportunity if they, and we, know how to use it.

Posted by Rich | November 20, 2007 8:51 AM

Rex,

"When I said that we would need solar panels covering the State of Georgia, I meant that literally--not just on the roofs."

I was alluding to all the roofs, in the U.S., that are now nothing more than heat sinks. Not that I suspect that that area, of roofs, is equivalent in area to the largest State east of the Mississippi, but it's a big number..

And, with this: "Sure, alternative sources of energy can assist in total power generation, but there is no way they will ever become the major power source, let alone replace the primary generation methods." I'd be betting with the use of Carbohydrates, SolarPV, and geothermal we could whack out a number of our coal/oil-burning power plants and gain, to use a technical term, efficiencies.

Posted by MEH | November 20, 2007 9:34 AM

D-
Ok, what do you think of this hypothesis-

"The rural electrification efforts of the New Deal, such as the TVA and REA, were the single most effective anti-poverty measure in U.S. history."

I happen to think its true, and not only that, has universal application.

Posted by Kenny | November 20, 2007 10:52 AM

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the US military swoop in and build a bunch of power plants in Cambodia. The discussion is about what sort of power generation would be best for Cambodia to supply the power they need. If they don't need more power, then they obviously wouldn't build power plants.

I look around my life and while I am not using energy as efficiently as possible, I am not exactly running my car all day while I work. For more money (=more resources & more energy), I could have a better insulated house, a better insulated refrigerator, solar panels, etc... but all of those things cost money and resources to build in the first place. So there may be cases where it's more efficient to spend less on the initial investment and spend more down the road.

As far as solar power goes, I looked at BP's solar power calculator and, based on getting federal subsidies back, I wuold have to spend $50,000 to reduce my electric bill by $36/month.

That's hardly cost effective. The rate of return on that investment is far worse than even government bonds.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | November 20, 2007 11:09 AM

so, Kenny, I am assuming you are willing to back that up with numbers, yes? It worked in our huge country, with this huge amount of natural resources, and this already firmly entrenched heavy industry.

How does that apply to Cambodia? Additionally, how is that poverty actually measured? My grandfather owned the ranch, the house, and all the surrounding acerage, as it had been passed down. With no mortgage, and very little else in the way of bills, he didn't have to make a lot of money to make ends meet. I'd bet if you measured the numbers he lived close to some poverty line or other. Meanwhile my step-father sold all that and moved to the city, bought a nice house and all the rest. He has OK retirement, because he sold the house and moved into a senior living place... but at the end of his life, there will be nothing.

He has never lived in poverty by the common measure, but if I balance the books, he has been losing money his whole life.

I don't see any reason to believe that the measuring standards of Cambodia should in any way be similar to ours, and moving from agrarian to industrial society has it's pitfalls.

Wouldn't it be nice if they learned from our mistakes?

Posted by D | November 20, 2007 11:20 AM

El

I looked at BP's solar power calculator and, based on getting federal subsidies back, I wuold have to spend $50,000 to reduce my electric bill by $36/month. That's hardly cost effective. The rate of return on that investment is far worse than even government bonds.

That means that your solar investment breaks-even AND you reduce your electricity bill by $36/month? What is so bad about it? Since it is attached to your house - you would not pay for it in cash but via your house mortgage? In other words - there are no major opportunity costs and you do not need a cash investment. The bond comparison is therefore irrelevant in this context as it is not a real opportunity cost! (As solar OEMs give 25 years of guarantees on the hard-ware - one can even get loans on the panels only and without real estate ownership.)

In other words - you can go green here and now. And this is before we have introduced the emissions tax (or cap) that we know will come soon.

Show me the economics of a nuclear plant... you invest billions over a decade so that you might reach a base load price of 5 cents/ kWh by 2050????? All while not being able to gauge all the other infrastructure investments needed to distribute it?

PS: When Google first launched in 1998 they were still deploying a rather centralized architecture (two Sun servers). Google soon moved to 15,000 low-cost linux servers in 2002. It is estimated that they now deploy 450,000...

And it is true - all the roofs on the planet are wasted without solar panels on them. In fact - when it comes to new constructions - the costs of installing solar instead of glass or tiles is marginal. Dubai and Kuala Lumpur have no idea what they have missed out on in the last 2 years alone. They will curse themselves...

PS II: China's SunTech is building a large PV manufacturing plant in the US... "A Chinese company opening up a manufacturing facility in the US. That's quite a reversal from what we have seen in the last couple of years"

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | November 20, 2007 12:51 PM

D-
No numbers whatsover. I just think it happens to be true. Anedoctally, look at pictures of people who were born in the Tenessee valley in 1920 vs people who born in the Tenesee valley in 1970.

Substitence agriculture (or a level just above it) may seem idyllic, but I suspect it's not for a majority. (Again, I have no data, other than the anecdotal data that a whole bunch a people moved from the country to urban areas in the 20th century; and continue to do so in places like India and China.)

I am not saying that neither you grandfather nor your father (nor yourself) may chose to live whatever urban,semi-urban, or rural lifestyle you may choose. But notice your father had that choice and chose not to continue the 'simple' country lifestyle.

Working in a factory for 8-9 hours a day, coming home, sitting down and watching [insert country adjectival form here] Idol with a hot or cold beverage of your choice may seem superficial lifestyle, but it is undeniable standard of luxury that has not existed for more than 90% percent of human history, and is still not available to almost 3/5 of the world's population.

Posted by Kenny | November 20, 2007 1:05 PM

Um... Hugo? What planet are you from?

I would have to spend $50,000 to acquire a solar panel system for my house. This would have to come from somewhere. As I don't have $50,000 sitting around in a box, I'd have to borrow it. Even if I got a real good home equity loan, I would be paying at least 5% interest. Let's assume I go for a 25-year term at 5%. My monthly payment is going to be $292/month. Meanwhile, my electric bill is reduced by only $36/month. My net change in expenses is going to be an increase of $256/month.

That's assuming that the panels require no maintenance or repair. Given that I live in a neighborhood with trees located on the Gulf Coast, the presence of hurricanes make that unlikely.

Sorry, I am currently looking for ways to reduce my monthly expenses, not increase them. For $256/month, I could get a new car for my wife.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | November 20, 2007 2:55 PM

Hugo was assuming you were getting all that money back in federal subsidies.

Posted by Rob Lyman | November 20, 2007 3:07 PM

Oh... sorry. The $50,000 was the net AFTER getting some Federal subsidies. If there weren't government subsidies, a solar system would cost even more.

If someone wants to give me the $50,000, I would happily install solar panels. I was actually a bit surprised that the biggest system that BP currently offers comes nowhere near covering my entire average electricity consumption.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | November 20, 2007 3:18 PM

EI

brrr... I cannot reply again... due to technology...

I think it is the links and not the length as I have tried to post my text one short paragraph after another and it does not work either.. this is the max that I can do. Maybe next time?

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | November 20, 2007 5:13 PM

Thank you for commenting.
Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.

Comment Submission Error
Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:
Too many comments have been submitted from you in a short period of time. Please try again in a short while.

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | November 20, 2007 5:16 PM

EI

Here some random raw links as I am afraid of posting anything exotic now.

ROI depends on state and sun shine, eg
www.dsireusa.org

to be continued

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | November 20, 2007 5:24 PM

Thank you for commenting.

Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.

Sorry.. I have tried it sentence by sentence.. I thought that it was the underscore in one of the URLs. i cannot post anything anymore unless it is complaining that I cannot post?

do a search on "utility peak prices" (at News.com) - it has something to do with that too. i also wanted to elaborate on solar vs bonds vs car for the boss, etc.

and look up sunedison.com, i wanted to argue that there are other options than DIY.

maybe next time.

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | November 20, 2007 5:33 PM

El

where do you live? what state? what utility?

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | November 20, 2007 5:35 PM

Lots of good comments here. Mine follow.

In Cambodia, a kilowatt-hour from the grid is priced to the non-subsidized consumer at about 20 cents. No telling how much the self-generation (which is signficant and would not be connected to the grid) costs hotels, manufacturers and commercial enterprises. At today's diesel and bunker fuel prices, not cheap but available. You may look at your utility bill to see what you pay for power.

To the point: Cambodia cannot afford nukes. Its grid (at about 150 MW) cannot support such large generating units as would make nukes efficient. Most important, its load requirements do not require such large generating units. It needs to start small with the most ecomomic (in real dollars and cents) projects that also maximize grid security. That is what it is doing. It is also looking to import power from Vietnam and Thailand and is investing in transmission lines to do so. (Distributed generation is a good thing at a level, but until we can affordably beam electricity without wires - a technology I would wager would come from the US, high voltage transmission systems must be developed if any country wants to have half a chance).

Offpoint: While hydro can augment capacity for Cambodia, it is not the sole answer on technical grounds. In the Greater Mekong Subregion, the rainy season generally picks up after the hot season. So during peak annual load (the hot season peaking in April-May), the reservoirs are generally tapped out due to the drought conditions and other watershed management issues. Thermal power must be utilized to handle peak load.

D-I think this is the order of things:

Abundant, inexpensive electric power
development
prosperity
middle class
responsible civil society

Without one, the next cannot occur. Responsible civil societies are societies that do not suffer much public corruption (I'm hoping for an earmark backlash in the US but that's off topic). They take steps to protect the environment. They have members that can calculate the ROI on solar taking into account mortgage costs, cost offsets, tax breaks and other subsidies.

Cambodia remains a feudal society. I would like to see better for its people. That starts with electric power.

It is a shame that you've reduced (apparently not just arguendo) the American experience and experiment and the ingenuity and grit of its people to "cheap TV". Too bad. It is not clear if you have been to Cambodia, but my guess is that you would not choose to live there. You choose to live in the United States of America. That's called voting with your feet. You likely have voted wisely. America indeed is a country like no other. There is nothing to be ashamed of. America has produced and shared with the rest of the world many many fruits. Its consumption is therefore not consumption by it alone.

Now, how about Thailand developing nukes and exporting some of the power to Cambodia? The World Bank could subsidize a portion of the cost and save the Cambodians a bundle while earning Thailand a handsome profit (I am not advocating state ownership of the plant but predict it would be the case). What might say the Thai people? What might those above that would nix Cambodia as a candidate say about Thailand? For me, but not for thee?

Posted by Jim Bradley | November 21, 2007 2:02 AM

As I recall, during the

Comments (78)