Michigan Votes Forum

The Russian reactor design was mentioned, just not by name. They are the gas-cooled reactors.

"Ironically, the French nuclear program is based on American technology. After experimenting with their own gas-cooled reactors in the 1960s, the French gave up and purchased American Pressurized Water Reactors designed by Westinghouse. Sticking to just one design meant the 56 plants were much cheaper to build than in the US. Moreover, management of safety issues was much easier: the lessons from any incident at one plant could be quickly learned by managers of the other 55 plants. The "return of experience" says Mandil is much greater in a standardized system than in a free for all, with many different designs managed by many different utilities as we have in America."

Here in the US, as in France, it seems that the biggest obstacle to storing nuclear waste, even at sites you mention, is convincing the people in those areas of their long term safety. That may be accomplished in the future. Now though, I am in favor of the government authorizing tax breaks for energy producers like photovoltaics and wind, realizing that to met all of our energy needs, other forms of energy will need to be utilized also, such as nuclear energy.

 i could agree with you more readily IF wind and solar were not PART TIME solutions that are not viable yet to replace grid energy. our demands for electricity are now 24\7. the wind doesn't always blow, and the sun only shines for half the day. nuclear power is clean, safe, very efficient and most of all, proven.

i have nothing against those other technologies, but i do not believe the tech is ready for the real world. nuclear is.

I'm not sure nuclear is either. The waste issue is still arguable to many.

But to get back to the subject of this discussion, a tax break for photovoltaics would increase it's viability in the market, spuring development in technology. This could only be beneficial for our future energy needs.

 why don't we just not tax anyone who has pv cells on their houses? cut their taxes completely? this would ensure that every taxpaying citizen in this state would instantly go out and put up solar cells whether the technology was ready or not.

as for nuclear power being untested, untried, or unsafe, i think that the nuclear industry has proven otherwise, not to mention the hundreds of nuclear reactors operated by the united states navy.

the RUSSIANS, on the other hand, have proven that when you subrogate science for politics, you get accidents such as chernobyl, and the several sub sinkings involving nuclear subs.

i'm sure that with enough research, which is ongoing, by the way, pv panels will one day be cost efficient enough to justify their use, and powerful enough to totally replace grid power, and cheap enough so that the average citizen will be able to afford it.

if government has to step in and dictate the whims of business (not the proper role of government) then the idea is not ready to support itself on it's own. it's not ready to handle 'the market'.

it cannot pass that test without 'big brother's' assistance, so it is not ready.

Everything doesn't have to come down to an ideology crazy, I mean uber. Nuclear energy received tax breaks to become viable in it's infancy, there's no logical reason why tax breaks can't be used to spur solar and wind energy too.

As much as you try to ignore the nuclear waste issue, it still exist, and needs to be dealt with.

Government isn't stepping in and dictating the "whims of business". They're merely leveling the playing field a bit. Much like a parent holding a child up for a short time while they learn to ride a bike.

Don't let your intense hatred of anything "government" cloud your common sense.

 i don't feel a hatred for government, just severe distrust. since when is it governing to provide a 'boost' to untried, untested, and so far, unpopular technology? if the legislators want to provide them a boost, then they should invest in the technology, put some of their own money into it, and help it along. using the taxpayer's money to effect the market, pro or con, is just wrong.

perhaps if they tried salesmanship instead of statesmanship, that might work better. in other words, sell solar, wind, tidal, and other alternatives as a good idea.

just as a point of information, do you know where we store our nuclear waste now? do you know HOW we store it? you can watch the history channel and see HOW WE MOVE IT, but not where we store it.

They are not using taxpayer money to promote business with this bill. This bill, if you bother to read it, gives tax payers like you and I a tax credit to install photovoltaics on our homes. That basically means we can pay a portion of our taxes with money we invest in something we use to reduce our home energy cost.

Being opposed to that just to adhere to your ridgid ideology is cutting your nose off to spite your face.

 if you read some of the other posts here, you will find one or two with the opinion that tax cuts are "redistribution of wealth" taking money from almighty government.

we are supposed to be taxed fairly, not capriciously. tax cutting to promote a certain type of business over another is not cutting taxes, but social engineering. neither promoting one business over another or social engineering is the proper role of government. if the intent is to cut taxes, then cut all taxes, not just a favored few.

if a business' taxes can be cut without harm to the necessary programs it supports, then either the programs it supports are not really necessary, or the taxes are too high to begin with.

To call encouraging new technology by providing tax incentives "social engineering" is quite a stretch, even for your ideology.

I go back to the preamble of the constituion, which you seem to either ignore or reject, but the founder's idea of the role of government is to "promote the general welfare". Promoting new and cleaner forms of energy would certainly serve that goal, in my opinion.