Re: costs

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>]

GlennACarlson@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Whether an industry insider said it first or not, the nuclear industry
> adopted it as gospel.

Not true. It's refuted in the part you [snip]'d  :-)  (esp. the NRC version).

Most of the industry doubted nuclear would EVER be economic ('50s). By
the time nukes were competitive (late 60s) NOBODY thought they would
be "too cheap to meter."  Look at the cost estimates of the plants,
and the final costs.  Just "competitive," but just barely, except in
higher-cost coal and oil locations (e.g., New England).  

Otherwise there wouldn't have been so many coal and oil plants built. 

It was case-by-case, with a surge in 70-73 when electric growth was
still 7%/year and building the infrastructure to provide coal or oil
supplies to meet projected demand just 10 years away (and Liquid
Natural Gas tankers, etc.) was clearly going to be a major problem. 
Of course, that softened after the '73 oil embargo, and recession,
with growth moderating to 2 1/2 - 3 %, and less than 2% during the
deeper recession period.  BIG difference in the cost picture of ALL
major generation - no large baseload plants ordered for more than 10 years.

Regards, Jim
muckerheide@mediaone.net
========================
 
> Glenn A. Carlson, P.E.
> glennacarlson@aol.com
> 
> > Subj:  Re: costs
> >  Date:    4/26/2000 1:39:52 PM Central Daylight Time
> >  From:    jmuckerheide@delphi.com (Jim Muckerheide)
> >
> >  Notwithstanding Heinlein (one of the great writers :-), as far as nuclear
> >  energy is concerned, let's get it right:
> >
> >  Lewis Strauss, AEC Chairman, 1954 (lawyer)
> [snip]
> >
> >  Regards, Jim
> >  muckerheide@mediaone.net
> >  ========================
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html