From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 20:42:22 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of Commercial Nuclear Power -- The Economic Failure
Summary: Another scientific/ethical masterpiece from GP
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: energy environment press

In article <Greenpeace.7Jan1993.1645@naughty-peahen> Greenpeace via Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
>[Greenpeace Press Release from Greenbase -- Redistribute Freely]
> 
>GREENPEACE REPORT EXPOSES TRUE COSTS OF COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER: 
>HALF-A-TRILLION DOLLARS SUNK, $97 BILLION OUT OF PUBLIC COFFERS   
> 
>WASHINGTON, December 15, 1992 (GP) Greenpeace, in conjunction
>with Komanoff Energy Associates (KEA), today released the first
>definitive study of the accumulated costs of nuclear power in
>the United States from 1950 through 1990.
> 
>Two years in production, 
                           Sounds like a promo for a new movie.

>the ground-breaking FISCAL FISSION:
>THE ECONOMIC FAILURE OF NUCLEAR POWER writes the bottom line
>for the massive government, industry and ratepayer investment
>in commercial reactors.  The report is coauthored by Charles
>Komanoff and Cora Roelofs, leading energy-costing experts.
>FISCAL FISSION shows that commercial atomic power has thus
>far cost $492 billion dollars, $97 billion of which in the
>form of federal subsidies.

One assumes the Komanoff and Roelofs approached this problem without any
a priori position, and analyzed it with full objectivity.

> 
>"FISCAL FISSION is the first full-scale compilation of
>taxpayer subsidies and utility investments in commercial
>reactor technology," said Peter Grinspoon, Director of
>Greenpeace's Nuclear Power Campaign.  "Taxpayers and
>ratepayers have pumped at least half-a-trillion dollars
>into commercial atomic power since 1950 in exchange for
>a declining 8% of our national energy supply."
> 
>According to co-author Cora Roelofs, "The cost estimates in
>FISCAL FISSION are very conservative.  They take only those
>costs that could be fully documented and rigorously quantified.
>It shows that atomic-generated electricity has cost consumers
>an average of at least 9.0 cents a kilowatt-hour, far more
>than other readily available fuels."
> 
>"This report teaches us that without even counting liabilities
>such as accidents and waste, nuclear power has failed on
>economic grounds," said Grinspoon.  "Nuclear power is untenably
>expensive and at best will play a dwindling role in the future
>energy economy of this country.  It simply can't compete."
> 
With what can it not compete?  Would it be fair to have it compete with
other _available_ energy sources?

>Komanoff and Roelofs based their work on the massive database

What is a "massive" database?

>built up by KEA over nearly two decades of studying the U.S.
>nuclear power industry and serving as a prime source of
>information on electrical generating costs. 

Ah, the first subtle shift.  Roelofs talks about the "declining 8% of
_our national energy supply_, i.e., total energy; KEA shifts to
_electrical generating costs_.  One of these things is not like the
other.  What, pray tell, is a "declining 8%"?  

>FISCAL FISSION finds that: 
> 
>* From 1950 to 1990, U.S. taxpayers, consumers and investors
>spent $492 billion to develop and obtain nuclear power.  This
>means that commercial nuclear generation during the entire
>period 1950-1990 cost an average of 9.0 cents/kWh (all figures
>are in 1990 dollars).
> 
>* Four-fifths of this amount, $396 billion, was expended by
>utilities.
> 
>* The remaining 20%, $97 billion, was spent by the federal 
>government and, thus, borne by taxpayers. 
> 

1. Does the government cost exclude the fraction of the total atomic
energy program devoted to weapons?

2. Does the utility cost analysis include all of the capital and
operating costs through 1990 without consideration of the potential
earnings for projected plant lifetimes?  If not, the $/kWhr are overstated.

>* The $492 billion total represents a minimum figure for
>resources spent on nuclear power through 1990.  Excluded costs
>could well total $375 billion dollars in categories such as
>health effects of radiation, accidents, artificially low
>insurance costs and support for foreign reactor development --
>even without counting the almost certain escalation in future
>waste and decommissioning costs.
> 
It would be too much to ask GP to document _any_ radiation health
effects..., but it would be interesting to see what they might claim.

Is the entire organizaton run by PR types?
Is there any scientific competence or ethical standard?
Do they care?

Humbug!