Pete,
For your reading enjoyment:
http://www.nwenergy.org/news/pressrelease/970902_pr.html
http://www.cyberlearn.com/rrwpps.htm
http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-nuclear.htm
http://archive.pulp.tc/Saleof_plants42301.pdf
Bill
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:02:16 -0700 Harry Pollard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Pete,
>
> It's between 0.1 and 0.2 cents. This is a government mandated amount
> and it
> has to be set aside - it cannot be touched by the companies.
>
> By the time the present run of plants is over (25 years?) all
> decommissioning costs will be paid from this sum.
>
> As about 17% of US electricity comes from nuclear, I suspect, if it
> were
> true, we would notice such a huge cost - wow, would we ever?
>
> Harry
>
> pete wrote:
>
>
> >Reading far behind, as usual...
> >
> >On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Keith Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Harry,
> > >
> > >At 01:15 12/10/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> > >>So, if you don't mind a tenth of a cent or so added to your kWh
> for
> > >>decommissioning, I suppose you will soon become an advocate of
> sensible
> > >>nuclear power.
> > >
> > >I think you'll find that it's more than a tenth of a cent.
> Nuclear power
> > >only cxame into existence because UK, US and French governments
> wanted to
> > >develop nuclear bombs. The capital costs of nuclear power
> development for
> > >electricity has been massively subsidised and are now written
> off. Here
> > >are a few paragraphs from "Nuclear Power No Relief From Energy
> Woes" by
> > >Susan Sargent published on May 19, 2001 in the Portland (ME)
> Press
> > >Herald. It's partisan but likely to be accurate. What follows is
> > >reminiscent to the false costs made by the nuclear power lobby in
> the UK
> > >about 20 years ago:
> > >
> > ><<<<
> > >Despite initial claims of "too cheap to meter," nuclear power in
> the
> > >United States has become too expensive to afford. The nuclear
> industry
> > >has received over the years, 60 percent of all federal energy
> research
> > >and development dollars. Yet customers of nuclear utilities still
> pay far
> > >higher prices than their conventionally supplied counterparts.
> > >
> > >A 1993 Energy Information Agency study found the average bill from
> a
> > >nuclear utility was more than two dollars per kilowatt hour
> higher and
> > >nearly $17 per month than from a conventional utility.
> >
> >There is something horribly wrong with these numbers. A typical
> electrical
> >consumption for a home is in the order of 1000 kWh per month. Two
> >dollars per kWh would make a monthly bill $2000, and that was
> termed
> >just the _incrememnt_ in cost. Thus I have no idea what this woman
> was
> >trying to say, but if that is transcribed correctly I must conclude
> that
> >she is utterly innumerate. Note however that $17 per month should
> by
> >my estimate above correspond to about 1.7 cents per kWh, which
> seems to me
> >to be about what I would expect for an incrememnt. Electricity
> rates in
> >North America range from the 6 cents [CDN] per kWhr that I pay up
> to
> >around 9 or 10 cents [US], not counting fits of Enron price
> gouging.
> >So I can make all the numbers work if I assume she meant 2 cents
> per kWhr
> >not $2, and she used an estimate of 1.2kW consumption over a 720
> hour
> >month (864 kWhr per month).
> > -Pete Vincent
>
>
> ****************************************************
> Harry Pollard
> Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles
> Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042
> Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242
> http://home.comcast.net/~haledward
> ****************************************************
>
>
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
