Benefits of nuclear science and technolo

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Dr. Cohen wrote:
 
> An excellent source is "The Untold Story: Economic and Employment 
> Benefits of the Use of Radioactive Materials" put out by Organizations 
> United for Responsible Low-Level Radioactive Waste Solutions. I got my 
> copy from Dr. Conrad Nagle, American College of Nuclear Physicians, 1101 
> Connecticut Ave, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20036. A quote from the 
> Summary: "In 1991, radioactive materials in the U.S. were responsible for 
> $257 Billion in total industry sales, 3.7 Million jobs, $11 Billion in 
> corporate profits, $45 Billion in tax revenues...." The booklet is close 
> to 100 pages, full of applications of radioactivity.

Bernie is right in that it is good that there are jobs created by nuclear
technology, and that we need to re-articulate the uses and sources of nuclear
science and technology. But we need to make more clear to expand the concept
of nuclear "benefits" beyond jobs. 

We need to also consider the value of the product:  the lives saved and the
non-invasive procedures in nuclear medicine over alternatives, electricity
with lower environmental costs, greater energy security, etc. Counting just
"jobs", we can say that the value of nuclear energy is "enhanced" by having
1200 people per plant, instead of the <600 that should be needed.  Is the
plant "twice as valuable" when twice as many people as necessary work there?
Are "make work" jobs are as valuable to society as productive jobs? Is a
$1Trillion for absolutely unnecessary environmental "cleanup" for no public
health benefits a benefit? (Is $20Billion for "radon remediation" to meet a
completely gov't fabricated 4 pCi/L standard that can have no public health
benefit a "benefit"?  :-)  

Is putting $10s Billions in the electricity ratebase for unnecessary costs of
nuclear electricity in plant equipment and O&M, and regulation, and "waste
management" a "benefit" (to other than the utility in their only
"profit-making" act: rate-of-return-on-capital), which are _costs that also
make nuclear electricity "uneconomic"_, and is leading to the premature
shutdown of nuclear power plants and the failure to build new ones. 

This leaves society at greater risk for the short term cost of natural gas and 
oil, and the explosion of pipelines, and the freezing of coal piles and
rivers, etc. Not to mention the horrendous costs of using solar _this winter_
and at the risk of natural phenomena - imagine a solar-dependent economy after 
the LA earthquake; or Mt. St. Helens, or Krakatoa (20 times Mt St Helens,
producing "the year without a summer)! Yet EPRI and the utility industry in
the '70s wouldn't even deign to consider making such a study, much less
actually make the case. Just as they fail to compare coal and nuclear.
Utilities will build anything gov't tells them to by providing rate-of-return, 
especially "pollution control equipment" when the ROI is > than for building
power generation equipment.) 

>         Another source is the Eagle Alliance. It can be contacted thru 
> the Secretary of American Nuclear Society. They are well financed and 
> embarking on a large program for advertising the benefits of radioactivity.

Note that HPS is not a Member among the dozens of institutions supporting the
Eagle Alliance. (This has contributed to the perception of HPS' desire to
"use" nuclear science and technology for its own short-term gain at whatever
cost, rather than support it). 

I would also note that, unfortunately, EA has been struggling to get
organized, without the indicated substantial financial support (in some part
the result of government "ownership", and government's primary mission to
"use" nuclear for its regulatory and federal funding mission to support a
massive bureaucracy and contractors, whether in using medicine, industry or
utilities), rather than in providing benefits to the public. 

At the same time, all of the major corporations and institutions, from
medicine to utilities, are dramatically "downsizing", and "cutting costs",
rather than effectively using funds and people to support finding solutions to 
and fixing the devastating failures and problems that have been foisted on
nuclear as a government step-child, without sufficient private interests or
potential returns on investment to contribute to establish a beneficial role
for radiation and nuclear technology in the service of, and to the benefit of, 
real people and society. Once the "owning" gov't entities, DOE, NRC, EPA, FDA
have joined the "bleed nuclear for personal gain" mode, no-one is really left
to speak for nuclear science and technology. 

(Remember, the utilities don't make money on the value of electricity, that
just get "return on capital". When nuclear was "economic" (late '70s), the
ratepayer reaped the return on investment. Congress/JCAE had the public
interests more in mind than anyone else. Utilities have had no incentive to
build cost-competitive plants, when gov't-driven costs were just passed thru
to the rate-payer. Now the current "deregulation" is moving thru the industry
but nuclear is egregiously overbuilt and costly. Only when/if IPPs replace
ineffective utilities in competing for the electricity generation business
will there be a potential change. Unfortunately, the horrendous cost baggage
loaded on plant designs will continue to make nuclear only a marginal
competitor until, and IF, reason is returned. 

The good news is that the 2 ABWRs at the K-site in Japan have demonstrated
ahead-of-schedule fuel loading and firm cost-control. Asia has made large
commitments because of the enormous value of nuclear electricity as a
component of long-term energy supply. An idea lost to the US. Unfortunately,
this news is not even substantially shared in the nuclear community! As the
ALWR program has spent vast sums but has utterly, incompetently, failed to
communicate the objectives or results with the public - and as a "state
official" who tried to be informed I can attest to it. 

With a new commitment to re-examine the design/cost basis, and learning from
the experience of GE and the Japanese in building future plants (minimizing
the role of the vendors since they have chosen not to contribute to nor share
in the benefits of nuclear electricity, and have lost/abandoned their mission
and role). 

Thanks Bernie,

> Bernard L. Cohen

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com