Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site azure.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!zehntel!tektronix!teklds!azure!jonw
From: jonw@azure.UUCP (Jonathan White)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame
Subject: Nuclear power and the free market
Message-ID: <2717@azure.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Apr-84 16:48:04 EST
Article-I.D.: azure.2717
Posted: Fri Apr 20 16:48:04 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Apr-84 08:45:30 EST
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 48

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