From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: N-Plants in Eastern Europe
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:14:43 GMT

In <Jym.24Jan1993.2304@naughty-peahen> Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:

>=o= The first is that nuclear power is very costly, and that
>the money spent on it could more effectively be used for
>alternate energy strategies.  It seems to me that the World
>Bank's analysis (referred to this latest press release) adds
>support to this argument.

	It seems that Eastern Europe has a lot of Uranium, which
would make fuel rather a pittance in a nuclear system.  Coal may be
more costly to mine/buy, and given the winters in certain parts of
the region, coupled with terrain, it's likely nuclear is the system
least likely to be affected by that snowstorm that stops coal trains
in their <heh> tracks.  This is just speculation, but as I'm sure you
will agree it is certainly a factor to be considered.

>=o= (Another part of this first problem involves the type of
>power involved.  Is electric heat common in Eastern Europe?
>Are electric heating devices readily available?  I haven't
>been able to find answers to these questions.)

	I can ask a few friends still in/from the former USSR.  One is
in the Ukraine, another in a class I have on alternate days.  I doubt
they will have performed an in-depth study of the situation, but
remember that electricity need not be used strictly for heat.  For
example, that electricity might power wells that pump natural gas
into the city mains, and from there to homes.  I seem to recall that
most buildings used steam heat, but where the steam comes from is
certainly open to speculation and later confirmation.

>=o= The second problem is that nuclear energy concentrates
>political power in the hands of a central authority.  Surely
>the Eastern European nations are suffering from having had
>too much of that already!

	At the risk of sounding pro-government, I strongly doubt
there is much willingness to allow electrical supply to be open
to strict economic principles.  Even in the USA we allow monopolies
with regards to power production.  A would-be tyrant charging more
and more for power would soon be a major annoyance.  Now let me
add another bit: think of the East European area.  90% of the adult
males have former military service.  Would you, as the Power Baron,
want several thousand torqued off, trained people wanting your hide?
I doubt it.  The government doesn't seem able to suppress such
things anymore, and as recent history has shown the people in the
area are not overly adverse to standing up for what they think is fair.
Granted, what they think is fair is not always what USA residents think
s fair, but I believe the potential exists and hence said Power Baron
is likely aware of public sentiment concerning his rates and reliability.

>=o= And so it would seem that a major argument against nuclear
>power in the West applies just as well in Eastern Europe:  the
>more centralized a power source is, the less control people have
>over their own lives.

	Considering the acceptance the People of the area have towards
being forgotten, this isn't exactly suprising.  However, this is not a
fault with nuclear power per se, but rather a fault with the aforementioned
Power Baron and his relationship with the people he is supposed to be
supplying.  The same could easily be said for any generation medium,
including coal or wind.  Note also that the acceptance I refer to and the
standing up for what they believe is fair I refer to above are not exclusive
terms.  I merely means they have different lines drawn in the sand, as it were.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >