There are some arguments for doing the right thing which
sound almost counter intuitive.
If one were to establish a Ron & Reggie Kray memorial institute
for the victims of knife crimes.
By promoting the ‘Greed is Good’ argument against nukiller
Yet this is not a counter intuitive argument in economic terms.
Given all the hidden costs of nukiller power,
plus all of the long term costs of storing and safeguarding the
then it is very hard to see how anyone could ever make a profit
without the tax payer shoulder the long term costs.
No wonder the companies involved in the industry are arguing
so strongly that we poor tax payers should pay for all the
unprofitable parts of the industry.
Just look at the insurance rates for each reactor.
At a time when there is going to be so much social harm as a
result of cuts in government spending,
is it really reasonable to keep subsidising the nukiller power
Last year George Soros pledged to put his money into helping to
stop global warming from carbon emissions.
Just keep in mind that the nukiller power industry also
generates a lot of carbon emissions,
Whether the Soros fund will also be used to help campaign against
the building of new nukiller reactors remains to be seen?
We still have to find out.
What we really need is more people like Soros coming out
against the building of nukiller reactors.
There is a lot of money at stake in terms of the nukiller power
but better returns are to be made by the alternatives.