[ RadSafe ] Overcoming America's nuclear power phobia

Thu May 12 21:50:10 CEST 2005

Let's not forget that while Shoreham stalled, at the same time work went
forward on Seabrook where the major utility shareholder, NH Public Service,
went bankrupt trying to satisfy intervenor challenges.  Seabrook ultimately
was licensed, in 1991, but the cost overruns were huge, and most investors
saw Shoreham and Seabrook as prime examples of why nucledar power was a bad
investment.
Mike Sinclair

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Potter [mailto:pottert at erols.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 2:09 PM
To: 'John Jacobus'; 'Jaro'; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Overcoming America's nuclear power phobia

At the time, Peter Bradford, then a member of the New York Public Utilities
Commission, but formerly a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
explained how this was not a huge transfer of cost to the US Government.  As
he described it, had the plant run, the depreciation write-offs would have
been roughly equivalent to the loss write-off from the plant closing.  A
wash, in other words.  Of course, he failed to mention that depreciation
write-offs would also have been offset by income from sales of electricity
from the operating plant, a not insignificant omission.  (I watched him
closely, and never once did his fingers leave his hands!)

The Shoreham story would take a book.  At least one book has been written,
but it doesn't begin to capture it.

A major problem was the requirement for licenses at both the construction
and operation stage.  Before LILCO sank any money into the plant (i.e., at
the construction permit stage) everybody wanted it.  After LILCO sank about
$5 billion plus change, nobody nearby wanted it, and used the operating
license proceeding to kill it--nominally due to emergency planning problems,
but if it hadn't been that, something else probably would have been used.  

As LILCO's sunk funds and interest charges kept building, they got more and
more desperate to finish the plant, expediently accommodating every
regulatory problem that cropped up.  One instance was a problem related to
reliability of emergency diesel generators.  LILCO kept adding diverse and
redundant generator capacity (diesels, gas turbines, stationary bicycles,
you name it) to the point that, when the plant was finished, the emergency
power capacity was a substantial fraction of the power capacity of the whole
plant!

As you might have guessed, Shoreham was also one of the plants delayed by
the passage of NEPA.

The regulatory process in place at the time set lots of traps, and most
plants fell into two or three.  Shoreham seemed to crawl straight (well
maybe not straight) from one to the next, and seemed never to miss a one.

The settlement was a real coup for all the locals.  The Feds, marked from
the beginning as a major--uh--stakeholder, were not invited to participate.

Thomas E. Potter 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 8:52 AM
To: Jaro; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Overcoming America's nuclear power phobia

Please note:

"Crushed by the burden of debt  incurred in building a
plant it could not use,  Lilco settled for  a deal
under  which, through a huge tax deduction,  the
federal taxpayers will  ante up for part of its
losses, and its customers will take care of the rest."

Economic bailout?  Maybe with some Federal tax relief,
LILCO would have gotten their license.

--- Jaro <jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Yes, of course -- and ditto for Shoreham.....
> http://www.fortfreedom.org/p15.htm
> 
>  Jaro
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On Behalf
> Of BLHamrick at aol.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 11:04 PM
> To: crispy_bird at yahoo.com; grantjoh at pacbell.net;
> radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Overcoming America's
> nuclear power phobia
> 
> 
> 
> In a message dated 5/11/2005 8:50:35 A.M. Pacific
> Standard Time,
> crispy_bird at yahoo.com writes:
> 
> Do you  think that a utility would not build any
> plant
> because of anti-nuclear  protest?
> 
> 
> My recollection could be wrong, but I believe this
> is precisely why the
> Rancho Seco plant near Sacramento was never fully
> operational.  I believe
> it was
> fueled and went through low-power testing, but the
> anti-nuclear  contingency
> in California prevented its full operation.
> 
> I would not underestimate the political power of
> those opposed to nuclear
> power generation, and by extension all things
> radioactive.
> 
> Barbara
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing
> list
> radsafe at radlab.nl
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have
> read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be
> found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and
> other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
> 

+++++++++++++++++++
"Embarrassed, obscure and feeble sentences are generally, if not always, the
result of embarrassed, obscure and feeble thought."
Hugh Blair, 1783

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com

__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail 

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list
radsafe at radlab.nl

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/