Public Opinion & Nuclear Project --Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] AsburyPark Press on Mangano's press conference

Thu Jun 21 18:23:21 CDT 2007

I believe it was "Shoreham".  I think the cost was in the Billions.
Ed baratta
edmond0033 at comcast.net
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Cherry" <bobcherry at satx.rr.com>
To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 5:01 PM
Subject: RE: Public Opinion & Nuclear Project --Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] 
AsburyPark Press on Mangano's press conference

And what about the NPP on Long Island in the 1980s that LITERALLY was ready
to begin producing power when political pressures convinced the governor of
New York to stop it? The electricity ratepayers, as I recall, then had to
reimburse the power company for the cost of building the plant out of their
electricity bills for who knows how long (maybe even now). I know someone on
Radsafe will remember the name of the plant.

Bob C

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of stewart farber
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 3:07 PM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl; 'Bjorn Cedervall'; 'Franz "Schönhofer'"; Sandy Perle;
John Jacobus
Subject: Public Opinon & Nuclear Project --Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Asbury Park
Press on Mangano's press conference

John,

I honestly find it hard to believe how short sighted your view is on the
effect of ill-informed public opinion.  Just what do you think drives the
"economics" of nuclear energy??

As was the case throughout the 1980s and forward,  nuclear plant after plant

was delayed [or 100 or so simply cancelled]  by demonstrations and public
opposition which influenced Public Utility Commissions [PUCs] in ways that
killed or vastly increased the cost of many nuclear energy projects.

Once case in point with which I am personally familiar: Seabrook Station.
Public pressure and blind legislative opposition responding to public
pressure forced the PUC to ban what is called Allowance for Funds During
Construction [AFDC]. AFDC has been traditionally used, and allowed by the
PUC of  almost all States on large capital projects, to include the cost of
new generating or service capacity in the rate base for a given utility as
it built a new nuclear plant. AFDC kept costs down so the capital cost
didn't increase as interest was charged on capital expenditures as a plant
was built, and interest was charged on interest over a long period of time.
Kind of like not paying down your credit card balance month by monthy,
while you are getting hit with high monthly interest charges for money
spent. A sure path to bankruptcy.

When AFDC was banned by the New Hampshire PUC,  the lead utility had to pay
interest on interest as the plant was delayed.  The two units planned at
Seabrook was cut back to one.  Public pressure forced and permitted the
Governor of Massachusetts at the time [Michael Dukakis -ah yes the Democrats

standard bearer in 1988] who wanted to do nothing more than please the
anti-nuclear electorate in Massachusetts at the time,  to exercise a pocket
veto on the licensing of Seabrook by ordering his State agencies not to
cooperate in Emergency planning because the 10 mile EPZ overlapped into
Massachusetts.

[Insert:  It was at that time during the general election of 1988, I wrote a

widely published satire about the health hazards of "Strepdukakis
antinucleosis" --but that's a story for another day. I was also invited
during the election to give a talk to the New England chapter of the ANS in
late 1988 which I titled: "Nuclear Energy and Public Information --Suicide
on the Installment Plan"].

In short order, the lead utility Public Service Company of NH went bankrupt
and the one unit built ended up with a cost overrun of about 8 fold, delayed

about 10 years during construction.

Seabrook was delayed for year after year, and the plant cost increased as
interest was charged on interest as the capital cost spiraled upward.  All
of this was made possible by ill-informed public opinion which did not
understand the issues [and the utilities involved had done an abysmal job of

influencing], and public pressure on PUCs, on legislators, on decision
makers of all  sorts.  Public opinion doesn't matter on nuclear projects??
Ludicrous and foolish to think so.

After all the fiascos with delays in licensing that they could not control,
uitilities were afraid to propose or build any new nuclear generating
capacity because as was said: "you bet your company".  Since the late 1980s,

the US has gotten by with building more and more coal fired electric plants
and countless gas fired peaking stations to meet growing demand, with gas
units now operating as baseload at very high generating cost. What a fiasco
all contributing to more greenhouse gas emissions to meet US power needs.

I believe we should all defer to the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln about the
influence and power of public relations and public opinion:

"With public sentiment, noting can fail; without it, nothing can succeed.
Consequently, he who molds public sentiment goes deeper that he who enacts
statutes or pronounces decisions."
----Abraham Lincoln, July 31, 1858

One does not need a scientific "study" to see the influence of puclic
opinion on regulators, legislators, and the course and cost of private
projects.

In the 1970s in another famous example of the power of public opinion, the
FDA banned the sweetener saccharine.  The public furor was so vehement, that

the FDA quickly backed off from its ban based on the Delaney clause, and put

a simple warning on the packets. Without public opinion against the FDA
position, the FDA would NEVER have reversed itself. Public opinion doesn't
matter on technical and societal decision making? Nonsense.

Stewart Farber, MS Public Health
Consulting Scientist
[203] 441-8433 [office]
[203] 522-2817 [cell]
email: radproject at sbcglobal.net
============================
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
To: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl at cox.net>; "'Franz "Schönhofer'""
<franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>; "'Bjorn Cedervall'"
<bcradsafers at hotmail.com>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:09 PM
Subject: RE: AW: [ RadSafe ] Asbury Park Press on Mangano's press conference

> Sandy,
> There have been many studies that show that DU, Sr-90,
> H-3, etc. are not causes of breast cancer, brain
> tumors, leukemia, etc.  Sadly, these studies will not
> stop those who believe that radiation and nuclear
> power is terrible.  They wander off and have another
> news conference in Trenton, Chicago, etc.  And every
> time they do, someone post the information on RadSafe,
> and we all whine about it.  Nothing changes, or have
> you not noticed that?
>
> If the public is so influenced by these groups, how
> come we are talking about new nuclear plants.  Of
> course, you cannot cite a specific example, because I
> doubt any exist.  The failure of nuclear power in the
> 1970s and 1980s was due to economics.  Companies
> grossly underestimated the cost of new plants, but
> hopefully lessons were learned.  I guess that the fact
> that new applications are coming before the NRC.
>
> I just you give too much influence to groups who,
> after 10 to 15 years, have demonstrated little of that
> influence.
>

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the 
RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/