RE: More on "informed dialogue"

["Lavera, Ron" <Ron.Lavera@nypa.gov>]

I usually try to stay clear of these types of discussions, but I feel that
this merits a few meager thoughts that I have.

True, not having a standardized plant design certainly raises the cost of
building a Nuclear Power plant.  Ford and GM would be more than happy to
talk about the benefits of standardized designs.

I think that there are several other major cost factors that should be
considered.  
First, many companies that jumped on the "let's build a nuke !" wagon were
not accustomed to the rigorous building and QA practices needed to
successfully complete a plant.  If you use poor materials, practices or QA,
when it comes time to try to license the plant, the NRC starts asking for a
lot of retest and rework.  Up goes the cost.

Second, many plants were caught in the Post TMI let's incorporate lessons
learned before we let these plants start up.  Re-engineering and rework of
plant systems becomes very costly.

Third, because of the extra care needed to build a nuclear plant and the
inexperience of many utilities, some underestimated the amount of time that
THEY would need to build the plant.

Fourth, after the plants were operating, some utilities thought you could
just run them like an oil or coal fired plant.  Not so with nuclear plants
!!  A little care goes a long way in this industry.

Fifth, the capital cost of a Nuclear Power Plant is probably THE major
expense associated with a well run plant.  The capital cost of a plant is
directly related to the interest expense associated with the plant.  The
anti-nuclear groups learned very early on in the game that they could make
just about any plant un-economically viable if they delayed start up and the
resultant debt pay down, as long as possible.

There are a number of utilities that have learned that they can make a well
run nuclear power plant become a license to print money.

...  mine and mine alone  ...

Ron LaVera
Lavera.r@nypa.gov

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Carroll,Raymond [mailto:carrollrg@pgdp.usec.com]
		Sent:	Friday, January 14, 2000 12:43 PM
		To:	Multiple recipients of list
		Subject:	RE: More on "informed dialogue"

		In reference to the "First:" point below, it is true the US
didn't have a
		standardized design at first.  Companies later tried for
standardized design
		but the NRC 'effectively' killed that try.  Two I am aware
of are:

			1. Duke Power tried to build Oconee Units 1,2 and 3
identical.  Duke
		was even it's own AE as I recall.  The NRC had three
different groups of NRC
		personnel reviewing the design, one group for each unit.  As
a result the
		NRC ended up having different requirements for all three
units which caused
		design variations.

			2. The SNUPPS plants including Wolf Creek, Callaway,
and a couple
		others were an effort at standardized design.  Some were
cancelled because
		of the regulatory problems getting the standardized design
approved and the
		one's that were built ended up licensing the design
separately (I'm pretty
		sure).

		There was talk last year of progress in getting a
standardized design
		approved, and I believe I read something to the effect the
NRC was
		cooperating.  If there is a future for nuclear power in the
US then
		standardization needs to be approved.

		Just a little history.

		Ray Carroll
		carrollrg@pgdp.usec.com
	
________________________________________________________________

		-----Original Message-----
		From: Al Tschaeche [mailto:antatnsu@pacbell.net]
		Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 6:18 PM
		Subject: Re: More on "informed dialogue"

		> First of all, the AEC consistently promised too much --
more than it
		> could deliver -- in terms both of cost and of safety.
Nuclear power was
		> touted as wondrously cheap; it turned out not to be, and
some credulous
		> utilities, and their ratepayers, have paid a heavy price.

		There are several reasons for the high cost of nuclear
power, much higher
		than the AEC thought it was going to be.

		First:  Each nuclear plant had to have an individual design.
The US didn't
		do what France did and establish a standard design for all
its plants.  The
		result is that plant design had to be included in each
plant, thus making
		the US plants inherently more expensive than those in
France.  The architect
		engineers made lots of money in that system.  But the plants
cost more.

	
************************************************************************
		The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and
subscription
		information can be accessed at
http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html