From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 25 Jul 92 18:36:29 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Jul25.165924.4424@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <50875@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>     Ho, ho, ho.  Good examples.  The TVA is a very good example of 
>     why the government should not, in general, be spending money
>     on huge projects that would be more efficiently developed and
>     run by private enterprise.  Counterexample, Virginia Power has
>     a reactor complex at Surry and one at Lake Anna that were privately
>     funded and produce much of the power with which I am using to respond 
>     here.
>
>     As far as the NRC, I agree completely.  The government in all its
>     forms overregulates nuclear power.  I find it hard to believe that
>     you agree with this statement.

I agree completely. Instead of defining clear and enforceable safety rules,
the NRC/AEC seems to operate on a purely PR and "don't offend the
manufacturers" basis. As a recent example, the Plymouth BWR reactor
near here has been revealed to have a known problem with measuring water
level in the reactor. This is not a minor problem. But rather than require 
the operators  to demonstrate a working device and working emergency
shutdown system, the NRC has attempted to solve the problem by keeping it
secret and by ordering the production of several tons of paperwork.
Not for the first time, I recomment David Okrent's "History of Nuclear
Power Regulation" for those who want to learn the reasons why US nuclear
power has managed to earn the fear and disgust of the general populace.
Operating on the, it's not broke if the press doesn't know about it,
theory of engineering management, the NRC, the utilities and the
manufacturers have compiled an impressive record indeed.

On the other hand, the federal pre-emption of 
city and state and private citizen rights to intervene in the siting of
power stations in their back yards or in their operation or
construction seems unconscionable to me.

>     As far as liability limits, that is a perfectly good part of tort
>     law.  There are limits in Virginia on malpractice claims.  I hardly
>     think such limits in restraint of free trade.  They are a restraint
>     on the largess of the legal system.


But, unless one can recover damages from someone who operates a plant
in a negligent manner or who knowingly risks the lives and property of
others, then there is a strong incentive for plant operators to 
cut corners on safety. If the plants are as safe as is claimed by their
advocates, then a liablity limit is unecessary, except perhaps for some
limits on nuisance suits. If the plants are not that safe, then they should
not be built.

>     The market is very "efficient" and "market driven" when it is allowed
>     to be.  I find it hard to believe that you, of all people, want
>     to allow it to be.  You might find 30 nuclear plants in New Hampshire
>     selling power to the Commonwealth's that would rather choose to
>     pollute our air and squelch economic growth rather than get power
>     from anything with the code-word 'nuclear'.

On the other hand, you might find that the customers of Northeast Electric
prefer not to endanger their lives and pocketbooks by investing in shoddily
constructed, and badly maintained engineering white elephants such as
Seabrook. You might find that without the protection of federal bureaucrats,
the advocates of nuclear power in new england might find themselves unable 
to convince either investors or citizens of the utility of their projects.

You keep writing of the "market" as if it is a natural force, not amenable
to human influence. But, the "costs" of long-term finance, the "costs"
of seizing land for high-voltage transmission lines, the "costs" of
nuclear insurance and  the "costs" of government enriched nuclear fuel,
are among the many politically determined costs of nuclear power.
Similarly, the way in which utility rate structures are calculated
effects the "market" in energy. Once CWIP costs became politically
dangerous, investing several billion dollars in a single power plant
of any kind become much less profitable. 

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9922 sci.physics:11547