Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxa!wetcw
From: wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame
Subject: Re: A reply to Scott Renner on nuclear power
Message-ID: <706@pyuxa.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Apr-84 14:05:34 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxa.706
Posted: Thu Apr 19 14:05:34 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Apr-84 01:48:21 EST
References: <2711@azure.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 61

{}
Jumping back into the fray, let me first say that I would be more than
happy to see all of the current nuke plants close.  There are just too
many problems with them right now.  On the other hand, I cannot see
them just locking the doors until there is an alternative source of
power to replace the lost KWs.  Jon White argues that coal is a good
alternative to nukes.  This is very true, however, the costs involved
in building new coal-fired plants, plus the environmental considerations
which must be met, are nearly prohibitive.  Jon also stated that there
is a great deal of hydro-electric potential available in southeast
Canada which can be tapped to supply the Northeast US.  I don't know
for sure, but I would think that the Canadians might not be too
enthusiastic about damning up their streams and rivers.

If Jon would like, I will build a coal-fired plant to end coal-fired
plants.  It will be the most modern plant you can imagine.  All
I need is a blank check to pay for everything.  A BIG blank
check.  All I will need to do is find an area that is near enough
to a good supply of the right kind of coal (there are differences
you know), where the population does not object, and the distribution
lines are available.  Then, after 5 or 6 years of invironmental
impact studies, government agency paperwork, and planning, I will
begin construction (good for 3 or 4 more years).  Then, after at least
8 years, I should be able to produce electricity.  IF some other
cheaper method has not come along to make my plant obsolete the
day it opens.

The problem is not as easily solved as Jon imagines.  I, myself, would
not be too anxious to invest in such a venture given that the costs
are so high as compared to the return on investment.  The Government
had to give a tax break to investors just to get them to buy
utilities stocks.  As it is, this type of investment is still not
such a good deal.  Of course, the government could expand the
Tennessee Valley Authority to the entire country and go into the
energy business in a big way.  But then, what happens to the
independent companies?  Does the government buy them out or do
they try to compete with the government?  The list of "what ifs"
could go on and on. 

Just closing the nuclear plants tommorrow would not solve the problem
of available energy.  New technology has to be fostered and developed.
The lines of protesters in front of the nukes would do better if
they were to form those lines outside the offices of those agencies
which are chartered to investigate new energy sources.  Get the
agencies to get off their rumps and get busy.  Get Congress to back
energy source investigation with bucks not platitudes.  Apply
pressure to those who can do something about finding new energy
sources.  It does very little real good to stop a few members of
the Plumbers Union from going to work, they get paid anyway.  
Milling around in front of a nuclear plant is not getting new
energy sources found, and is probably counterproductive anyway.

That's all I have to say on the subject except, the pile of statistics
that have been bandied about on coal vs. nuclear do not convince
me one way or another as to who is right or wrong.  Those figures
are munged to fit the argument and we all know it.  Instead of
quoting from this expert and that expert, become an expert and
find us a new way to develop energy sources.  Until then, I
am going to stick with the nukes we have (not that we need any
more though).
T. C. Wheeler