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

Mon Jun 25 15:44:12 CDT 2007

As you note:  

". . . plus some mismanaged construction planning, and
some good old fashioned NY State featherbedding by
construction unions just to round out the brew."

Profits were lost before the plant was operational.
Economics appears to be the driving force here. 

And you quote is from the cartoon strip Pogo that I
used to read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo#.22We_have_met_the_enemy.....22

--- stewart farber <radproject at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> The plant mentioned by Bob on Long Island was the
> Shoreham NPP. It wasn't 
> just LITERALLY ready to begin producing power, but
> had gone through low 
> power testing. It operated at 5% power for a few
> weeks in the late 1980s as 
> I recall, just long enough to crap up the plant
> systems and make 
> decommissioning absurdly expensive.
> 
> The plant was shutdown by pressure from New York
> State. LILCO [Long Island 
> Lighting Company] received some kind of substantial
> financial compensation 
> from the taxpayers of the state of NY [the cost was
> so large it had to be 
> spread over all residents of NY State via taxation]
> as well as long-term 
> payment to the utility from ratepayers. The job of
> decommissioning the plant 
> fell to the New York Power Authority. I don't know
> how much it cost to 
> decommission Shoreham,  but $1 billion is probably
> in the ballpark [again 
> paid for by taxpayers and ratepayers].
> 
> Of note, Shoreham and Vermont Yankee were sister BWR
> plants in design [ 660 
> MW[e] units].  Both started construction in 1967. VY
> began commercial 
> operation in 1972 after 5 years of
> construction--on-time and on-budget 
> [about $600 million total]. Shoreham began low power
> testing at 5% in 1988, 
> due to a combination of opposition from the public
> and legislators in Long 
> Island delaying the plant, delay until the TMI
> accident in 1979 forced 
> further delays for plant mods, plus some mismanaged
> construction planning, 
> and some good old fashioned NY State featherbedding
> by construction unions 
> just to round out the brew. Final price tag for
> Shoreham was $6 billion, 10 
> times the price of VY at $600 million for a sister
> plant. WOW! $6 billion 
> for a plant that was never allowed to enter
> commercial operation when it was 
> ready.  What a mess. Long Island has the highest
> power costs in the US and 
> the local politicians blame everyone but themselves.
>  Don't get me started.
> 
> They should remember the quote from Peanuts: "We
> have met the enemy, and 
> they are us."
> 
> A cool and Happy Summer to all. May everyone avoid
> brownouts and blackouts.
> 
> Stewart Farber, MS Public Health
> Consulting Scientist
> Farber Technical Services
> 1285 Wood Ave.
> Bridgeport, CT 06604
> [203] 441-8433 [office]
> [203] 522-2817 [cell]
> email: radproject at sbcglobal.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??
> 
=== message truncated ===

+++++++++++++++++++
“All men dream, but not equally. Some dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds and wake in the day to find it is vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible.”
Seven Pillars of Wisdom by T. E. Lawrence

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com

____________________________________________________________________________________
Need a vacation? Get great deals
to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
http://travel.yahoo.com/