Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!hplabs!hao!ames!eugene
From: eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.sci
Subject: Re: Nuclear power vs Coal vs Alternatives
Message-ID: <1557@ames.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 7-Jul-86 13:31:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: ames.1557
Posted: Mon Jul  7 13:31:32 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 9-Jul-86 02:02:47 EDT
References: <628@bu-cs.UUCP> <1943@ihlpg.UUCP> <796@whuts.UUCP>
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 57
Xref: watmath net.politics:17163 net.sci:1199

<408@meccts.UUCP> <817@whuts.UUCP> <209@njitcccc.UUCP> <176@cci632.UUCP>

> 
> This article is also being added to net.sci to insure that I'm not wildly
> misinformed about Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs) and Argon/Freon
> properties.
> (editing)
> Actually, the pure costs (non-legal) of nukes has actually gone down,
> even before inflation, but the legal costs have gone up exponentially.

	No, the non-legal costs have gone up.  But it also
	gets harder to separate: e.g., are clean-up mops considered legal
	cost?
 
> Not to mention the incedent reports every time there is even a trivial
> problem in operation.  If coal powered plants had to fill out the same
> paperwork each time they were take off the grid, before they could get
> back on the grid, the whole country would be running on five plants.

	No, but coal fired plants don't have fission products
	like Ba, Sr, Cs, etc. when they blow up.  And they do blow up.

	(more editing)
> >Third, and in my opinion one of the biggest problems, are the
> >managers of these companies who constantly go for short term
> >profit and ignore long term gains, as well as those managers
> >who have no idea as to what they are managing.

	Ken and Rex: (re: bashing managers and PWR) hindsight is
	frequently 20/20.  One of the biggest reasons we have PWRs
	is that back in the 1950/1960s, there was a great dirth of
	engineering expertise in any reactor technology.  We (the
	US people) wanted clean power.  The first source of
	engineering expertise came from the US Nuclear Navy, and
	power companies took people from the USN as airlines take
	miltary pilots.  Their experience was all under PWR systems.
	This was probably a smart management move at the time.
	The problem was that the 1) the engineering has not been able
	to scale on all account, and 2) the relative rigidity of
	the USNN's position on PWRs which are probably fine for
	their needs, but could do with some updating.  It's too
	easy to bash managers (profit vs. long-term).  Don't forget
	that most power company managers started as engineers.
	All you have to do is write EPRI in Palo Alto.

	While I am a critic of certain aspects of the economics of
	nuclear power, I recognize the need for coherent argument.

The following has very little to do with space (other than take up tracks
on a disk), so round up the usual disclaimers.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  com'on do you trust Reply commands with all these different mailers?
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,tektronix,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA