[ RadSafe ] Too much GOVERNMENT regulation

Tue Mar 22 20:40:45 CDT 2011

The problem with self regulation is the utilities are not capable or willing to assume the liability of the full range of accident scenarios (much like our banks....).

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 22, 2011, at 8:23 PM, William Lipton <doctorbill34 at gmail.com> 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
>>> 
>>> 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
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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