From: jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: True Costs of French
Summary: Costings are out
Date: 25 Jan 93 01:21:41 GMT
Followup-To: sci.energy
Organization: Statistics, Pure & Applied Mathematics, University of Adelaide

In article <1993Jan19.215714.9617@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>In article <2011@spam.ua.oz> jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew) writes:

>>If the French Nuclear Industry is so damm good why do they keep it all a
>>secret? The French keep the entire program (or at least large parts of it)
>>quiet.

>Just because you don't look hard enough for the info doesn't mean it's not
>there. In my previous posts on this topic, I presented a great deal of facts
>about the French system. I suggest you check out Nuclear News and other
>trade related publications. Just because you don't see them in Time doesn't
>mean they aren't available.

I do believe that is a flame. If you have any information about where I
could look for a detailed (or even superficial) break down of the costs
and earnings of the French power industry I would be very happy. And if
of course it showed that French reactors got no cross subsidisation from
Fossil Fuel generation I would be prefectly prepared to apologies publically.
I am aware that the French publish a lot of technical details some of which
clearly show problems with their industry. The low efficiency of their gas
cooled reactors for instance. I have yet to find any infomation on the costs
of generating power from such reactors.

BTW I wouldn't read TIME if you paid me. I'll even watch the gold fish in
my doctors surgery for 3/4 of an hour rather than read that rag.

>>into profits. The French program *is* a mess (as much as I hate to agree
>>with Greenpeace) If it worked they wouldn't be so secretive! Many of their
>>Reactors (like the early Gas Cooled British reactors) are designed to
>>produce Pu not power (sure, they produce power but their main design was
>>for Pu for their bomb program. They are woefully ineffieicient). When they

>Tell me which reactors produce just Pu, and tell me why a country is not
>allowed to have a Defense Program. Why is the French program a mess? I
>worked there last summer and I didn't get that impression.

Pluueeze, did I say *just* Pu? I don't think so. What I meant was that
French reactors were not designed with low cost power in mind. Especially
the early CO2 cooled ones. These like their British counterparts were
designed to be part of the Weapons program. I have even heard someone
refer to the British units as 'Pu factories with poor generators attached'
but as this was hardly an official or authoritive source I won't argue
the point. I have no problems with the French defense program. I couldn't
care less if they make bombs although I would prefer them to test them in
France. As for the French nuclear program it is a mess because it was not
designed to be efficient and I do not believe it to be so. Everything I
have read agrees that in a free market the French would not be using their
present systems. In short the French do what they do because the government
wants them too not because it pays. If it paid they'ld be boasting from
the roof tops about how much better their program is to the British :-)

>>come clean I'll start to believe them. The SuperPheonix fiasco certainly
>>would take a lot of explaining!

>Yes, I'd like to explain the technical details, but it's more difficult to
>understand than the usual Greenpeace claim, "Nukes suck".

I never read Greenpeace claims as a general rule and nor do I accept the
argument that 'Nukes suck' so perhaps you better start with the technical
details now.


Joseph Askew


-- 
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  Barbarian horns draw out the northern wind;
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu  Paler than water lies the Thistle Pass;
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  Sky swallows up the road to Kokonor;
One China One Korea One Eire32  Moonlight, a thousand miles along the Wall.
Newsgroups: sci.energy