Italy is studying to restart their nuclear energy program. USA is looking at this option. In Australia, the Howard government, which has been voted out this year, has also argued the need of adopting the nuclear energy in the name of combating Global Warming (How ironic!). Australia, a major exporter of Uranium, has only limited unclear facility for research and has chosen to remain unclear-free so far.

Therefore, it just makes me wonder: why nuclear energy becomes a trend all of a sudden?

More than 50 years ago, general public in the developed world were more ready to accept the use of nuclear power. At that point of time, people, including the proponents of nuclear plants, believed that nuclear energy will solve energy crisis once and for all. Electricity would become so cheap that it would be too cheap to meter.

Of course, it turns out to be not the case. First of all, the cost to upkeep a nuclear plant is not cheap. Then comes cost of the handling and storage of nuclear waste. Thirdly the consequence of a major accident in nuclear plant, God forbid, is guaranteed to be catastrophic. The downside risk is simply too big to justify the marginal saving of energy cost.

So, why our politicians are so eager to promote the nuclear plant now?

I cannot help but think in conspiracy theory mode: a nuclear plant can only produce cheap energy if and only if a government is willing to bear part of the cost, be it incentive in form of tax concession or subsidy in various forms (e.g. sponsored a nuclear waste processing site using public money).

It is not only costly to build and run a nuclear plant, it is also very costly to close it.

In the other word, once we commit to nuclear energy, then even after we discover a better, cleaner and safer technology to generate energy, we will not be able to make a switch because it is not economical. A unclear plant will not be closed before its end-of-life date simply because better competitors force it out of market by way of market mechanism. It is because the upfront capital investment is so big no investor will voluntarily close it as long as the revenue will cover the operating cost. The astronomical cost to dismantle the nuclear site is also another disincentive. Unless, of course, unless someone come along and pick up the bill. Guess who will that be? Our government again on behalf of all the taxpayers, certainly.

It begs a questions: then why it is attempted at all to lock the general public into the nuclear energy? The nuclear power plants, once they are given the go-ahead, will cement the current centralized energy generation/distribution paradigm into next century, if not eternity. If the unclear energy supporters cannot get their way now, then in next 5 to 10 years, there is a distinct possibility that the renewable energy technology will become sophisticated enough to replace the need of any additional conventional power plants. There will no justification to build any large-scale energy generation plants at all.

It is certainly not a good news for existing energy sector incumbents. And probably mean loss of business opportunity to infrastructure sector and investment bankers. For some existing players in the energy sector, I speculate, they see renewable energy as a subversive technology because of its distributive (or democratic, if you will) nature. A right green energy technology will enable ordinary people to generate energy in their backyards to fulfill the energy appetite of an entire household. It will be a game changer to the current capital-intensive business model.

Some big infrastructure companies and bankers will also naturally prefer big projects like a mega-watt power plants. A plant will create demand for supporting infrastructure around the plant and the building of the the plant itself. Bankers can underwrite and issue debt to finance these projects. The big energy firms are most likely to pay handsome fee for any business and financial advises from the bankers.

There exists a nation called San Marino.

There is this interesting article, China’s Class Divide, by Daniel A. Bell in NT Times. Here is a brief summary of the content.

“Tsinghua is one of China’s most prestigious universities and it is known for its politically conservative orientation. President Hu Jintao is an alumnus, and most of my colleagues are Communist Party members, as are many of my students.

Yet the atmosphere is anything but conservative. The most popular lecturers tend to be the ones who openly criticize contemporary China. In private, students are quick to express frustration at Internet censorship and official propaganda. In class, student questions are often critical to the point that I need to introduce some “pro-government” views for balance.

Shortly after the uprisings in Tibet in March, I happened to lecture on Locke’s idea of constitutional democracy. A student asked if the “right to rebel” would justify the use of violence by Tibetans fighting for independence. In the interest of class time, I had to shut off the discussion. The next week we discussed Isaiah Berlin’s concept of freedom. Once again, I was forced into the strange position of cutting off debate before it got out of hand.

After the Sichuan earthquake, I was due to lecture on John Rawls’s theory of justice. I tried hard to think of an example that the students could grapple with.

Finally I came up with a good one (or so I thought). According to Rawls, the state should give first consideration to the worst-off members of the community. But which “community” matters? Do the state’s obligations extend outside national boundaries? For example, the cyclone in Burma caused more deaths than the Chinese earthquake. Should China help the victims of the Burmese cyclone, even if it means less aid for the rescue mission in China?

When I finished, the class went unexpectedly silent, to the point that I could feel a certain amount of hostility. Finally a student said that of course the Chinese government should help the Chinese first. But why, I said? Another student said, it’s obvious, the victims are Chinese. “But why, why?” I asked, somewhat impatiently. Give me some reasons.

Some students spoke up. There is no global institution that could distribute aid in accordance with Rawls’s principles of justice. The Chinese people pay taxes to the Chinese state, so the state has special obligations to them. The Chinese state couldn’t do much for the Burmese people even if it wanted to.

I responded that the Burmese government is truly awful, blocking aid to its own people, and that the Chinese government could have some influence on it. The bell rang. In the past, the ever-polite students would clap in appreciation before leaving. This time, there was no applause.

When I got home, I realized that I had trodden on sensitive territory. Chinese TV has been filled with scenes of death and devastation, of Chinese soldiers wading through mud and gore to help the victims. Every conversation is prefaced with concern about the victims. I sent an e-mail message to the class apologizing for the “wrong-headed” example.

A student wrote back saying, “It is not a wrong-headed example; we just have clear and strong identification.” That seems to go to the heart of what went wrong. It’s perfectly natural to care about people closer to home, especially in times of disaster.”

I think while the questions is worthy of critical examination and scholarly discussion, the timing of raising it in the class cannot be worse. It is as if asking a class of American students why USA foreign policy caused the hostility from aboard right after 9/11. I don’t think there are many of us who are capable to deal with the weight of the question rationally.

This question, I think, also highlights a difference in the Eastern and Western moral values: In the East, as exemplified by Confucius’s teaching, the care for others are radiated from an individual along the axis of the distance of relationship. An individual is expected to care for himself and his family first, then his country, and lastly the universe. (修身,齊家,治國,平天下 – “Cultivate yourself, Maintain your family fair, Make your country peaceful and prosperous, Bring eternal peace to the World” )

The Western moral value is strongly influenced by the Christian faith. The value is deeply rooted in the culture and manifested as belief in Universal Values such as Human Right, even though more and more European, and to a certain extend, American, are turning their back to organized religions,

In China, A similar view has been taught by Confucius’s contemporary rival school, Mohism. Confucius has refuted this as preposterous because he did not believe one can love a stranger as much as one can love his parent.

As an investor it is important to do proper accounting to keep track of the P/L of his/her holdings. Ideally the holding should be marked to market frequently if not monthly. All cost and income should be recorded. It helps an investor to have a realistic picture of the health of his/her investment.

An investor should also maintain a reserve account which sets aside cash for tax on realised and unrealised profit.

The book was first written in 1936, so, I reckon, it did require work and discipline for average do-it-yourself investors to keep track of P/L back in those days. Today, with all these online resources such as Yahoo Finance, it is a lot easier to do so.


Quick link to The Battle for Investment Survival by Gerald M. Loeb

Go is an ancient Chinese board game. I always want to learn more about it, but never really have the time until recently.

The more I understand Go, the more I appreciate the beauty of the game.

The basic move is extremely simple: If you want to capture an enemy, just place sufficient numbers of your pieces surrounding the target such that they are completely cut off from their kind, then they become your PoW.

In order to win, a player must occupy a bigger territory than his/her opponents at the end of the game.

However, I can assure you that you cannot achieve this goal by simply just battling your enemy out.

In fact, focusing too much on winning individual battles may end up costing you the ultimate victory. Simply put, since it usually takes more pieces to take over enemy land, if you spend your resources (i.e. pieces) to warring, instead of territory building, you may risk not occupying enough land. Battles should only be a mean to secure your territory or weaken your opponent, not an end in itself.

How does it related to life? Well, sometimes don’t we focus too much on immediate, short-term gain (akin to capturing enemy pieces in Go), and forget our bigger pictures in life?