[ RadSafe ] Too much GOVERNMENT regulation

[William Lipton]

"Self-regulation" is an oxymoron.

Bill Lipton
doctorbill at post.harvard.edu


On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Howard <howard.long at comcast.net> wrote:

> Nuclear "Business" is better regulated by customers than by self-serving
> bureaucrats, Dewey, -
>
> - as is physician care. 94% of Medicaid cost in KS is for other than
> doctors, their overhead, labs and imaging. The bureaucracy is 98% of
> "health" cost for Medicaid  in New Jersey!
>
> Read Rockwell. Review the finance costs for nuclear plants.
> Would you invest in regulatory harassment for 15 years (while interest cost
> mounted)?
> Palo Verde puts out electricity 1/4 the cost gas or coal generators do.
> Why does it have just 3 instead of the planned 10 reactors? State of Fear
> (Crichton)
>
> Read Freedomnomics (Lott) if you believe government regulation keeps
> nuclear reactors safer than Westinghouse or GE would, or that economics is
> not choked by cancerous government growth.
>
> Howard Long
>
> On Mar 22, 2011, at 5:55 AM, "Thompson, Dewey L" <DThompson3 at ameren.com>
> wrote:
>
> > All right, I'll bite.  I think you got it wrong Howie.
> >
> > The impediment to new nuclear power is NOT regulation.  It's economics.
> >
> > The cost to build a new Nuc means that in most cases you are "betting the
> company" simply to buy it, never mind the risk exposure to the company if
> the operators break it.  We could likely have a discussion that TMI didn't
> really affect the public, and therefore was a vindication of the safe
> design.  Anyone want to argue that TMI wasn't a really-really bad business
> outcome?
> >
> > I think most of us right now would agree that the effect upon the public
> from the Fukushima accident is unacceptable.  Anyone want to argue the fact
> that this won't be a really-really bad business outcome?
> >
> >
> > The energy policy act of 2005 said basically "You build a new nuke, we
> will give you a billion dollars".  And the economic issues STILL made a
> couple of the mid sized utilities blink when it came down to "put up or shut
> up" time.   They shut up and did not pursue a construction/operation
> license.  There will be some of the big boys get their billion by building a
> new unit, but most utilities simply can't afford it.
> >
> > My point?  Most members on a board of directors are loathe to bet the
> company on a single asset.
> >
> > As to the over regulatory part, the NRC is chartered to protect the
> public.  I don't have a problem with that.  Frankly, compared to the
> business risk issues, the regulations are not that onerous.  (Of course
> there are specific regulations that are probably not really needed, but
> those are mostly minor in nature.  And of course some individual regulators
> can display freakazoid logic at times, but again, it isn't a widespread
> problem.
> >
> > Nuclear plants NEED to be designed, built, and operated at a higher
> standard than is seen in much of industry.  The public demands it, of
> course, and the regulators primary charter is NOT the business interest.
>  And if you protect the business interests, the public won't have a worry.
> >
> > FWIW
> > Dewey
> > T 314.225.1061
> > F 573.676.4484
> > E DThompson3 at ameren.com
> >
> > <SNIP>
> > so excessive regulation impedes nuclear energy
> > (see Rockwell, Creating the New world).
> >
> > Why not discuss on Radsafe how much regulation is good (or bad)
> > just like how much radiation itself is good (or bad)?
> >
> > Howard Long
> >
> > The information contained in this message may be privileged and/or
> confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is
> not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for
> delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
> strictly prohibited. Note that any views or opinions presented in this
> message are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
> those of Ameren. All e-mails are subject to monitoring and archival.
> Finally, the recipient should check this message and any attachments for the
> presence of viruses. Ameren accepts no liability for any damage caused by
> any virus transmitted by this e-mail. If you have received this in error,
> please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message and deleting
> the material from any computer. Ameren Corporation
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> >
> > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>