[ RadSafe ] Too much GOVERNMENT regulation

Thompson, Dewey L DThompson3 at ameren.com
Wed Mar 23 10:56:31 CDT 2011


Apologies for the two word answer last night.  I started to reply using the blackberry, thought better of it but fat fingered the send. 

I do absolutely disagree with a couple of your points, and I think you mis-understand my main point.  Your use of the medical community to make your point is a non starter.  The regulatory purpose is different.  ALTHOUGH.  I might be able to use your medical example to make MY point.  Many of the medical regulations you are carping about are to prevent fraud. Take any situation where a "doctor" has been charged with milking Medicaid or Medicare or whatever.  If you had no regulation, the fraud would be rampant. 

My main point is that for the most part regulation is NOT driving the costs of nuclear.  You HAVE to have that complex machine with the complex redundant backup systems in order to reduce the risk of catastrophic loss (business model).  Protecting the public is important (OK, its "job 1").  BUT if you protect the business interest correctly, protecting the public isn't an issue.  

No, I don't think regulation keeps plants safer than the business interests.  I DO however believe that regulation provides an important safety net to protect the pubic against "bad businessmen".  A low level case in point.  Davis Besse Corroded Head Event.  Regulation did not prevent the event.  Good business practices WOULD have. 

Yes, I've read Rockwell.  Some of his ideas are sound, some are crackpot.  He doesn't like the Frammatome New Generation PWR (Sorry, AREVA).  Uhhh, foo.  That 1600 MW PWR is going to be a cash cow for whoever builds one.  

AND I've read Mikey Crichton.......He too makes good arguments.  But the point goes back to where the decisions are made to build nuclear plants; in the boardrooms of utilities.  There is where you will find the answer to why Palo Verde has only 3 plants vice 19.  

OH yeah. The financing issues for nuclear plants.  Again, that is not "regulation" per se.  Many states do have in place "Construction Work In Progress" legislation that prevents the plants from charging the ratepayers until the plants are in operation.  These regulations were sold to the voting public as "consumer protection"......Foo.  They were intended to be "poison pills" to prevent building of nuclear plants.   They were strategized and funded by the "Anti" crowd.  THAT is whom you should be railing against.

FWIW Dewey

T 314.225.1061
F 573.676.4484
E DThompson3 at ameren.com


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

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

More information about the RadSafe mailing list