Re: More on "informed dialogue"

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

"Lavera, Ron" wrote:

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

All thoughts are important, especially ones that add information to the
discussion.  Thanks for doing so.

> 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.

There's a lot of truth to this point.  However, I don't know the relative amount
such a "learning curve" cost the nuclear utilities.  Clearly there was some
learning curve costs, but I believe (correct me someone if you have the data)
this factor was not nearly so expensive as others such as TMI retrofits, the
antis forcing NRC to add safety requirements and inflation.

> 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.

Absolutely!  However, the argument here is that the antis forced the NRC to add
a lot of requirements that probably weren't necessary.  I was involved in the GE
reactor design and intimately involved with some of the NRC required "fixes."
Some of those fixes were, in fact, only the NRC's desires.  However, several of
those testifying before the ACRS and other hearings were antis who forced their
very conservative ideas on the listeners.

> 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.

Again, true.  The learning curve is expensive.

> 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.

Also true.  Again the learning curve.

> 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.

Yup.  And this, I believe, is the biggest reason plants cost so much.  The antis
continue to make all things nuclear cost a lot by delay.  Look at Ward Valley
and WIPP and Yucca Mt..

I would really like someone to look at the history of all of the antis
involvement in nuclear power (only) and see if they could show quantitatively
how much the antis cost the industry.  Of course there will be a lot of
subjective considerations of whether the anti's requirements really improved
safety.  But, I think it would be very interesting to do if one had the support
to do it.  NEI, are you listening?

> 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.

Again, true.
Thanks again for your input.  We must not loose this history.  Al Tschaeche
antatnsu@pacbell.net

begin:vcard 
n:Tschaeche;Al
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Nuclear Standards Unlimited
version:2.1
email;internet:antatnsu@postoffice.pacbell.net
title:CEO
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Al Tschaeche
end:vcard