Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cepu.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!bmcg!cepu!scw From: scw@cepu.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame Subject: Re: Nuclear power and the free market Message-ID: <232@cepu.UUCP> Date: Mon, 23-Apr-84 08:55:17 EST Article-I.D.: cepu.232 Posted: Mon Apr 23 08:55:17 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 24-Apr-84 01:04:09 EST References: <2717@azure.UUCP> Organization: VA Wadsworth Med. Center, LA CA Lines: 86 >>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?? >>>>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"