jonw@azure.UUCP (Jonathan White) (04/20/84)
I'm glad that someone has seen fit to address this point that I made in an earlier article: The bottom line is this: if nuclear power is as safe as government and the nuclear industry would have us believe, why then does industry continue to insist on the limited liability provided for in the Price-Anderson Act? No other industry has (or needs) this type of taxpayer-provided insurance. Why should we pay good tax money so that we can be subjected to a dangerous and unnecessary technology that couldn't last even one day in the free market? <mike (ea!mwm) responded as follows: >Your first few lines imply that Nuclear Power is a hazard being forced on us >by the industry/government (presumably because the industry is greedy and >the government is cooperating with them). You then say that the technology >wouldn't last a day in the free market. Exactly right, but then you say: >In other words, the industry can make more money with a conventional (or >some other) power plant than with a nuclear plant. Can you explain how this statement follows from your first two sentences? I see no connection. If an enterprise couldn't last a day in the free market, yet is massively subsidized by the government, then it can hardly be said that the enterprise will inherently make less money than a non-subsidized enterprise. Obviously, in a free market no one is going to invest in an enterprise that won't make money, and that is exactly why our government has "sweetened the deal" in order to attract utilities to nuclear power. Our government has poured billions of dollars into nuclear research and even, in effect, pays an insurance premium equivalent to the total operating cost of each plant. With incentives like these, it is no wonder why nuclear WAS an attractive option to utilities. I say "WAS" because it should be obvious to everyone by now that nuclear, even with massive government subsidy, is not a good investment. The enormous cost overruns of plant construction, the very real possibly of a financially disasterous accident, and organized public opposition due to safety concerns all contribute to a climate that is not encouraging investor confidence. It is about time that free market pressures have finally caught up this dangerous and fragile technology. The questions that I posed at the beginning of this article are still unanswered. Anyone else care to give them a try? Jon White [decvax|ucbvax]!tektronix!tekmdp!azure!jonw
jlilien@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Joel Lilienkamp) (04/21/84)
What really annoys me about the Price Anderson act is that the utility has its liability limited to 1 billion dollars (I think). Yet, the damn plant costs 4-5 billion (or more). At least, the liability ought to be AT LEAST the construction costs of the plant, although I really agree that the government ought to leave insurance to Lloyds and the Rock, and protection to the Mafia. I don't question spending the money on research, as I beleive research is the basis of new economic activity. Joel
scw@cepu.UUCP (04/23/84)
>>I'm glad that someone has seen fit to address this point that I made in an >>earlier article: >>The bottom line is this: if nuclear power is as safe as government and the >>nuclear industry would have us believe, why then does industry continue to >>insist on the limited liability provided for in the Price-Anderson Act? No >>other industry has (or needs) this type of taxpayer-provided insurance. Why >>should we pay good tax money so that we can be subjected to a dangerous and >>unnecessary technology that couldn't last even one day in the free market? The industry likes the P-A act becaus it allows them to get insurance even cheaper than conventional power plants. If Nuclear power is *SO* inefficent then why oh why does France use so much, and why is the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) so interested in getting nuclear power Thechnology from the United States?? >><mike (ea!mwm) responded as follows: >>>Your first few lines imply that Nuclear Power is a hazard being forced on us >>>by the industry/government (presumably because the industry is greedy and >>>the government is cooperating with them). You then say that the technology >>>wouldn't last a day in the free market. >>Exactly right, but then you say: >>>In other words, the industry can make more money with a conventional (or >>>some other) power plant than with a nuclear plant. I think he's paraphrasing you. Why would the industry want to build something that will be more expensive when they can build something cheaper? Because the *LONG TERM COSTS* are lower (fuel in particular). What happens if Iraq and Iran really get their war going and blow up say 80% of the oil production capability in their part of the world? $100+ a barrel oil, thats what (do I hear $200, $300?). >>Can you explain how this statement follows from your first two sentences? I >>see no connection. If an enterprise couldn't last a day in the free market, >>yet is massively subsidized by the government, then it can hardly be said that >>the enterprise will inherently make less money than a non-subsidized enterprise. Why is it subsidized? Are they out to get us(you)? There has to be a reason that the Goverement wants to build Nuclear Power plants. Can it be that there are a few people in high places with something aproching vision and the ability to see farther than the next election? >>Obviously, in a free market no one is going to invest in an enterprise that >>won't make money, [...] it is no wonder why nuclear WAS an attractive option >>to utilities. >>I say "WAS" because it should be obvious to everyone by now that nuclear, even >>with massive government subsidy, is not a good investment. The enormous cost >>overruns [...] that free market pressures have finally caught up this >>dangerous and fragile technology. France gets some large fraction of its electricity from nuclear power (60%??) does any one in netland have the correct amount? And I believe that they are still buildling MORE reactors. How do they handle their insurance? The main reason for enormous cost overruns is people &*(& with the plans, and *LONG DRAWN OUT COURT FIGHTS* that push compleation dates farther and farther into the future allowing inflation and Murhpy's law to run up the price. In addition after the fact changes required by the resulting court descisions are usually very expensive to implement. (And usually don't change anything anyway.) >>The questions that I posed at the beginning of this article are still >>unanswered. Anyone else care to give them a try? The big problem seems to be that people *STILL* persist in thinking (at a gut level) that Nuclear power plants are *BOMBS* and that they can *BLOW UP*!!! The worst that they can do is turn themselve into a lump of very high grade ore. Think about it for a minute, the geomerty of a reactor is very critical (pardon the pun) in achieving criticality. The shape of the core is ~~ spherical, unlike a weapon there is only enough active material to achieve criticality with *NO* extra. If you change the shape of the core (meltdown) what you end up with is a puddle of mixed core and steel (the core shell) and other misc junk floating on top, sitting on a Steel/concrete containment shell. The shape of the puddle is ~~a watch glass (a chord arc of the spherical containment vessel) in this configuration there is *NOT* enough active material to maintain criticality. Now there is still a problem of how to clean up the mess. But there is no CHINA SYNDROME and there can't be an explosion !!!! -- Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology) uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcsvax!bmcg}!cepu!scw ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-locus location: N 34 06'37" W 118 25'43"
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (04/28/84)
#R:azure:-271700:uokvax:5000086:000:1333
uokvax!emjej Apr 28 09:15:00 1984
/***** uokvax:net.politics / ihopa!burris / 7:37 am Apr 25, 1984 */
Let's not forget the possiblilty of a hydrogen explosion which could
rupture the containment building releasing the contents into the
environment.
Nuclear plants are in general very safe but the costs of even a
single catastrophe are too great to allow corporate interests to hold
precedence over safety issues.
/* ---------- */
Asking for safe energy is rather like asking for dry water. In any
case, nuclear plants are far safer than other methods of producing
electricity. (The number two accidental killer, next to automobile
accidents ("Yeah, but nobody forces me to drive a car!" Oh, but I'm a
pedestrian, and I'm forced to cross the streets that are full of bozos
who do drive...), is accidental falls, and one can just imagine all
those folks out there with rickety ladders reaching out just a hair
farther to clean off their collectors.) This includes, by the way,
opportunities for terrorism (you're much better off and safer blowing a
hole in a dam).
Environmental impact? Compare coal mining with uranium mining. (Also, look
again at the insolation constant and figure out how big an area would have
to be covered to generate as much electricity as the one that supplies
you with electricity--yes, indeedy, small is beautiful.)
James Jonesdwr@ccieng6.UUCP ( Donald Wallace Rouse II) (04/30/84)
XXX > > If an enterprise couldn't last a day in the free > market, yet is massively subsidized by the government, > then it can hardly be said that the enterprise will > inherently make less money than a non-subsidized > enterprise. > > Obviously, in a free market no one is going to invest > in an enterprise that won't make money, and that is > exactly why our government has "sweetened the deal" in > order to attract utilities to nuclear power. Our > government has poured billions of dollars into nuclear > research and even, in effect, pays an insurance premium > equivalent to the total operating cost of each plant. > With incentives like these, it is no wonder why nuclear > WAS an attractive option to utilities. > Maybe I'm stupid, but I can't figure out *WHY* the government has subsidized nuclear plants unless they expected some return from them eventually. (Of course, I can't figure out a lot of what the government does.) It seems to me that the reason so many plant projects are failing is bad management. If we could get people to build plants who knew how to build plants efficiently (i.e. no cost overruns, knowing how to deal with red tape), then these plants could operate a profit (eventually). As for the danger to the general public, I read (in Scientific American's Mathematical Games or Metamagical Themas, I think) that there exist devices which, over the course of ten years, claim the lives of as many people as live in San Francisco. Why isn't there an outcry about these devices? Why aren't they banned, or buried in red tape? Because they contribute to the welfare of the general public, that's why. These devices are called automobiles, and I must confess that I own one. I personally believe that less people would die in nuclear plant accidents (even severe ones) than automobiles, no matter how prolific nuclear plants become, although I must admit I have no real data to back up my beliefs, other than the safety record of the plants so far. As to the disposal of nuclear waste here is my solution (and I know I am about to show my ignorance): In the Atlantic and Pacific basins, new crust is forming on the earth, welling up from the magma below. This means that elsewhere on the earth, crust is being returned to the deapths of the planet. Bury the nuclear waste there. It will disappear forever. Or does that take too long for the crust to subsume?) D2
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (04/30/84)
#R:azure:-271700:uokvax:5000088:000:731 uokvax!emjej Apr 30 13:16:00 1984 More on solar energy: one Charles Gay of Arco Solar (subsidiary of Arco Oil) spoke last week here at the University of Oklahoma. To quote a local paper's article about his talk, Gay said he expects that by the end of the decade, [photovoltaic] modules will be up to 20% efficient compared to today's 11% efficiencies. So, if you did the exercise of figuring out the area that must be covered by something to receive solar energy that would generate as much electricity as the generator that powers the terminal you're reading this by (sorry about the grammatical error in that posting) and you were thinking of using photovoltaics, then you should multiply the answer you got by 9 (today) or by 5 (in 1990). James Jones
lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (05/02/84)
Donald Wallace Rouse II writes (among other things): >...This means that elsewhere on the earth, crust is being returned to the >deapths of the planet. Bury the nuclear waste there. It will >disappear forever.... The trouble with this proposal is that the magma of coastal volcanoes comes from the melting of such crust. Horrors, in 5 million years St. Helens might well nuke as well as puke. B-) Larry Wall {allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall P.S. I want a bumper sticker that says "COAL KILLS QUICKER". Has a nice alliterative ring to it. P.P.S. Requisite flame, since this is going to net.flame: pragma FLAME(ON); Have you noticed that the gentle art of writing postscripts has very nearly disappeared ever since these .signature files came into vogue? People are becoming slaves of their .signature file. Consider the practice flamed. pragma FLAME(OFF); Suggestion for users of intelligent editors: mv ~/.signature ~/.mysig and then write a little mlisp routine called insert-signature-file that does an insert-file on "~/.mysig", and bind it to ^X-s or something. Works great, and increases your feelings of power rather than impotence, at the cost of only a couple keystrokes. Consider the practice espoused. P.P.P.S. Or how about "SAVE OUR TREES/SPLIT ATOMS, NOT WOOD"? P.P.P.P.S. Requisite political observation, since this is going to net.politics: Obviously the anti-nukecritters should appreciate the savvy of Reagan's deal with China. He just got us some trade agreements of positive value, while giving away nuclear power plants, which are (according to anti-nukecritters) of negative value. Clever, these running-dog Yankees.