From: firstname.lastname@example.org (B. Alan Guthrie)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Energy vs Alternatives
Date: 3 Apr 1995 12:52:06 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse NMD
In article <email@example.com> firstname.lastname@example.org (Bark) writes:
>Cyber Nuke (email@example.com) wrote:
>: Your example of nuclear fuel reprocessing was a poor choice. Jimmy Carter
>I'm not sure which of my many references te reprocessing you mean, but
>I assure you that any reference was purely intentional.
>: mandated "no reprocessing". The commercial industry (Barnwell) was
>: essentially complete and ready to begin operations until the Feds stepped
>: in and screwed everything up. Now you are suggesting that the Feds should
>: step in again and "help us". Thanks, but no thanks.
>Not just Barnwell!!! Jimmy Carter suffered from various delusions of
>understanding. The man claimed to be a nuclear engineer, but I would
>love to see a copy of his credentials. All accounts I have found show
>that he took an intro navy-nuke course and either quit or flopped out.
>Had he passed, he would still not necessarily have to understand much
>more than operations (nix physics, nix reprocessing, etc, etc, etc).
>The man was not a nuclear engineer, by any stretch of the immagination,
>and he knew it. Flatly, he lied. If he was the least bit pro-nuclear,
>he couldn't have gotten away with it. But I digress.
>Besides Barnwell, what involvement was there in reprocessing?
>You name it.
>Westinghouse, GE, Allied Signal, many others. Each corporation sunk
>significant investments into "sure things" sponsored by the US
>govmnt. Then WHAM! Carter happened. When I suggest that a national
>energy policy is required, it would include some sort of protection
>for corporations that go out on a limb on the basis of the published
>agreements. Perhaps subject changes to congressional oversight.
>Representatives are reluctant to short-sheet their constituency, whereas
>the president knows he's gone in 4 to 8.
Let's look at what the constancy of the U.S. government has
done for nuclear power. As discussed in this thread, the
government promoted the development of commercial re-processing
and then pulled the plug just as the plants were about to come
on line. I recall that there was talk of keeping Barnwell in
mothballs until the regulations and government policy were
resolved, but Allied GS wanted the tax write-off, so they had
to knock it down (just an anecdote - not a condemnation of
tax laws - yes, I love the IRS (April 15 is looming and I
don't want my good friends at the IRS to come looking for me).
And there was a reprocessing plant at Morris, IL, as well,
although it had some technical problems. It never operated
Then, there's my favorite example of Federal inconstancy -
the Clinch River Breeder Reactor. The utilities put up
$250 million of their own money (back when $250 million was
real money), but, once again, the Feds let them down and
shutdown the project, giving the utilities nothing in return.
Then, there's this year's example - Yucca Mountain. The
Feds have the clear statuatory duty to take possession of
and dispose of spent fuel. But the Yucca Mountain repository
won't be ready on time (we'll be lucky if it's delayed by
only fifteen years), and, to boot, the Department of Energy
is trying to argue that it doesn't have the responsibility
to take possession of the spent fuel, in clear contradiction
of the legislation.
Then, there's last month's example - the Advanced Neutron
Source. This project has been under way for at least six
years, but now it's cancelled.
The moral - the Federal government cannot be depended on
to complete an energy project which takes more than a few
years to complete.
These thoughts are mine alone and are certainly anathema
to my employer.
B. Alan Guthrie, III | Faster horses,
firstname.lastname@example.org | Older whiskey,
| Younger women,
| More money.