[ RadSafe ] Too much GOVERNMENT regulation

[Maury Siskel]

Government as we experience it today, is  mere unthinking Regulation 
with an unfortunate absence of any semblance of  '-self-'
Best,
Maury&Dog       [maurysis at peoplepc.com]

========================
William Lipton wrote:

>"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
>>>
>>>      
>>>