kuvasz wrote:mysteryman wrote:Quote:only the federal government has the resources to build, maintain, support, and protect a nuclear power plant. other avenues will by the nature of the profit motive result in less safe nuclear plants.
http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/PowerGeneration/SanOnofreNuclearGeneratingStation/default.htm?goto=songs
Quote:The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) is jointly owned by Southern California Edison (SCE) (75% ownership), San Diego Gas & Electric (20%), and the cities of Riverside and Anaheim. Today, SONGS provides nearly 20% of the power to more than 15 million people in Southern California -- enough power to serve 2.75 million households.
I used to live within 3 miles of this plant, and they never had a problem.
Private enterprise is the only way to run a nuclear power plant, exactly because they want to make a profit.
Since they want to make a profit, they will do whatever they have to to make sure the plant is safe.
Have there been accidents in the past?
Yes there have.
Have companies learned from their mistakes?
Yes they have.
Someone mentioned Cherynobl.
That plant was of a design that has NEVER been allowed to be built in the US because of its design flaws.
More people have died in the US in coal mining accidents in the last 2 years then have died in accidents involving Nuke plants totally.
Nuke plants can be run for a profit, and run safely.
The two do not cancel each other out.
The only way nuclear power is considered to be "safe" in the marketplace is by direct intervention of the federal government.
The Price-Anderson Act bestows a twofold subsidy on the nuclear industry. First, the Act artificially limits the amount of primary insurance that nuclear operators must carry -
an uncalculated indirect subsidy in terms of insurance premiums that they don't have to pay.
This distorts electricity markets by masking nuclear power's unique safety and security risks, granting nuclear power an unfair and undesirable competitive advantage over safer energy alternatives.
Second, Price-Anderson caps the liability of nuclear operators in the event of a serious accident or attack, leaving taxpayers on the hook for most of the damages.
This makes capital investment in the nuclear industry more attractive to investors because their risk is minimized and fixed.
Consequently, the Act is a dual-edge sword for the public that it purportedly protects.
The legislation was intended first of all to bolster investor confidence, whereas victim compensation is secondary.
Price-Anderson establishes only phantom insurance for the public, then provides a real bailout mechanism for the nuclear energy industry by reducing its need to pay for insurance, subsidizing the industry at the taxpayers' expense. If proposed new reactors are as safe and economical as the nuclear industry claims, the industry should be able to privately insure these ventures without an extension of the Price-Anderson crutch.
When Congress first enacted Price-Anderson in 1957, it was designed to be a temporary measure to prop up an infant industry. After nearly five decades and billions in hand-outs, it is impossible to justify extending subsidies like the Price-Anderson Act.
For more, pro and con.
http://www.nuclearpowerprocon.org/pop/Price-Anderson.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011210/bivens20011126
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/nuclear/index.asp
What is not surprising is that the typical A2K apologists for market-only solutions appear sufficiently uninformed to boast about how private companies can produce nuclear power cheap and safe when the entire industry actually is based upon and backed by the government intervention in the marketplace they detest.
and guys, I am an advocate of nuclear power, if done correctly, because an "accident " in a nuclear plant is a quantum difference versus coal miners getting trapped three miles under the ground in rural West Virginia or even the Exxon Valdese.
A singular accident at a nuclear plant has the potential to devestate an entire state and leave it uninhabitable for all life for hundreds of years.
And being such a potential problem for the entire country, I want the military to run the show. So yes, I trust the US military to protect me from disaster before I would civilians chasing after a profit.
But that's just me, but apparently I have more faith in the American military than some others do
Lots to think about here. My thoughts:
1) The civilian chemical industry in this country already deals with chemicals far more hazardous than nuclear material. To say that the marketplace will force companies to run unsafe operations shows a complete misunderstanding of manufacturing science in this country. It costs a lot more to have an accident in this country than to prevent an accident. Between paying all the court costs, damage claims, medical expenses, etc. it is EXTREMELY cost effective to go all out for safety. The nuclear industry is an extreme example of this. Note that there are a lot of things worse than a leak from a nuclear power plant. Chlorine for example is a heavier than air gas that destroys your lungs and nasal passages very quickly. A major leak from a one ton container could easily take out a small town as it hugs the ground and spreads out. Want an example of this (not specifically with Chlorine), put "Bhopal" into your search engine. Chlorine is used by many manufacturing facilities, but there has not been a Bhopal event in this country that I can ever remember. Commercial operations have been extremely effective in protecting the public from catastrophic failures. I think you could make an argument that corporations will push the regulatory boundary on things like pollution control, but the nuclear industry is one of the most regulated industries in the country.
2) A nuclear accident will not "devastate an entire state and leave it uninhabitable for all life for hundreds of years." Chernobyl did not do that and it was on a scale unimaginable in the US with current reactor designs. If you were standing at the fence surrounding TMI when the accident there occurred, you would have received all of 3 mrem additional exposure, an insignificant amount. The most likely release from a nuclear plant in an accident are radioactive gases with half-lives ranging from a half day to a day. They're only a concern for a week at most. Please remember that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities today. During the 40's, an Army/Air Force reactor in Idaho blew up. The
reactor literally blew up, killing a three workers and hurling pieces of itself all over the place. The military buried the reactor and continued building test reactors nearby.
3) There is no reason to assume the military can run reactor plants better than civilians. The military has some advantages over non-military, but also some disadvantages. On the plus side, they can spend a huge amount on training and can staff to very high levels. On the down side, the accountability is not the same for the organization (the Navy will not go out of business if a sub reactor has an issue) and the personnel turnover is high. Additionally, the military is not necessarily able to recruit and retain to top people in the field and is subject to political pressure. I'm an ex-Navy nuc currently working in manufacturing for a civilian company and I'd take the later for running commercial type reactors.
