j_b

There are lots of worthy applications both for nuclear fusion and fission, and the needed research should take place but I am not sure that we should think of nuclear fusion as a future source of energy until it appears likely (also note that subsidies for fusion research aren't as bleak as you suggested): "Despite optimism dating back to the 1950s about the wide-scale harnessing of fusion power, there are still significant barriers standing between current scientific understanding and technological capabilities and the practical realization of fusion as an energy source. Research, while making steady progress, has also continually thrown up new difficulties. Therefore it remains unclear whether an economically viable fusion plant is possible" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Economics

subsidies should be proportional to likelihood of delivering clean, safe, cheap power for the near future and fusion power isn't anywhere near the top of that list.

what about: "they" try to keep it close by disenfranchising as many as they can from the political process, then "they" try to steal the critically close races through systematic voter suppression (via both lawful and unlawful means) like in Florida 2000, Ohio 2004, ..? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression

nauseating to contemplate

Note that I am not necessarily against continued subsidy when there are also external benefits (like transit, etc ..). But, it's an entirely different starting point than assuming that nuclear is cheap when it is in fact very expensive. In the meantime, there are other sources of energy that appear much more likely to provide us with sustained, safe and cheap energy that aren't getting the subsidies they should.

A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientist finds that "Nuclear Power is Still Not Viable Without Subsidies". The report found that more than 30 subsidies have supported the nuclear power industry at every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining to long-term waste storage, since the industry was born more than 50 years ago. Added together, these subsidies often have exceeded the average market price of the power produced by nuclear plants. In other words, if the government had purchased power on the open market and given it away free, it would have been less costly than subsidizing nuclear power plant construction and operation. Elected officials are much more bullish about nuclear power than the general public. The Obama administration wants to triple the amount of federal loan guarantees for nuclear projects to $58 billion, which would shift the risk away from Wall Street and place it squarely on taxpayers. Congress, meanwhile, wants to greatly expand other subsidies for new reactors. Two Senate bills introduced last year would have provided incentives worth as much as $5 billion per reactor and tens of billions of dollars to the industry depending on how many plants are built. Those bills died, but will likely resurface. “Despite the fact that the nuclear power industry has benefited from decades of government support, the technology is still uneconomic, so the industry wants a lot more from taxpayers to build new reactors,” said Ellen Vancko, manager of UCS’s Nuclear Energy and Climate Change Project. http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html?utm_source=SP&utm_medium=head&utm_campaign=NuclearSubsidies-02-23-11-head

is that what you believe? because I certainly don't.

whatever riding to work they do is way more than offset by the policies led by politicians they vote for. One vote for Bush and you can never make up whatever damage you caused to the planet or so I heard.

I suspect think we all might be pitching in on that one... I don't do unnecessary judeo-christian guilt trips but I certainly do all I can to stop this train wreck by opposition to people who do all they can to prevent sustainable policies.

Actually, it's because of fuckwits like KKK that the world as we know it ends a little bit every day.

Hurtling towards Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update in a perfect storm of crises, and the sociopaths get rid of recyclable cups in the house of congress to go back to Styrofoam. Take that eco-terrorists!

so what did John Holdren recommend to Obama?

I am clearly condemned to having Jim biting at my ankles forever now. LOLZ

the "decline of spray"? decline from what? tell me you are joking, please. Without us spray would be a morass of juvenile irrelevance and not even funny to boot.

Too many divas to love to come up with just one name. No? if I have to give just one: Cecilia Bartoli

That's actually one of my pet peeves. Process controls outcome: climb/ski with a dick, and you are pretty much guaranteed to have a terrible time. I know because i have experienced it many times. Why should anyone wish to spend entire days with neanderthals? Just give me one good reason. As for degenerating threads, I think that is the purpose of the trolls.

there is no fiscal responsibility without social justice. How could you even be fiscally responsible without raising fair taxes? what nonsense!

Your verbal commitment is admirable but it means shit if you aren't willing to stick with it and get something in return.

I know the dodge. You have practiced it here often enough, but IMHO only a fool or a dimwit would, for just one example among many, deny that health care cost (hardly a state issue) is the main cause of debt at all level including state of course. So please keep your silly rhetorical sausage making to yourself: the war budget, taxing who can be taxed, and going after tax heaven even in if they are in the lower 48 are all issues that are 100% connected to state budgets. I'll let your monologue stand for itself.

Your poor rationalizations (corporatists are preventing the fed gov from bailing out the states) for your not wanting to cut the war budget, effectively tax the wealthy and corporations, cut all unnecessary corporate welfare are really irrelevant. Demagogues like you made it toxic for politicians to discus raising progressive taxation, yet you now blame politicians for their demagoguery and their passing the buck onto the future. Your argument is transparent and worthy of an anti-government zealot.

Clearly, JayB appears especially concerned with maintaining the profit margin of the Military-Industrial complex (please remind me of any evidence to the contrary if you can). So fuck you teachers, bus drivers, nurses, you'll have to earn even less than you did relative to the private sector from now on because the killing machine has to be fed before you.

Anti-tax zealots caused both the financial crash and the drowing of government in a bathtub, but they will only allow bailing out of kleptocrats. Fuck you middle class (no need to mention those below)

What hogwash! Let's seriously cut the war budget, take back the various corporate welfare that isn't doing anything worthwhile for the greater whole, effectively tax (because tax rates tell us nothing of actual taxation) corporations and the wealthy (in particular make war on tax heavens and close loopholes), and invest in the economy. Then, we'll see what we can afford to do or not, but not before we do all of it. I guess that pretty much sums up the difference between Jim and me.

That, or the regressive frontal assault (I know, not too hard to visualize) on environmental protection: Clean Air Act under attack from extremist Tea Partiers backed by big business

Which fund of taxpayer's money was used to issue trillions in cheap loans to the banskters so they could keep going with outrageous compensations? Oh, sOrry, I forget that corporate welfare doesn't really register with you despite your posturing to the contrary.