Jones--you wrote: >The only way the USA could have achieved the same reliable nuclear program as >France did is essentially with Socialism, and a national policy for nuclear. >Having coal made that policy impossible here – so we did not do that, and now >the cost of nuclear is through the roof.
We did not need Socialism and we had a national policy for nuclear in the Price Anderson Act which was only partial Socialism. All we needed were good regulations for the reactor design part of nuclear and for the economics of the public utilities that thought Nuclear was the best invention, since sliced bread; regulations that mandated simple, small design that used components that could be made by a dozen vendors and could be assembled in 2 years or less. The simple small design is related to safety concerns and providing for competition in the componets and plant construction. This was course the nuclear navy took successfully. The Navy selected 1 reactor design for subs after the initial R&D period and built 60 of essentially the same design with huge savings in consturction, competitive pricing and operater training, not to mention increased safety, reliability and design understanding of materials under long term use. Nuclear did not need 4 different designs--the CE, the Westinghouse, the GE and the B&W designs--which made operating nuclear plants much more expensive considering training and repair, design, construction etc. associated with the 4 different plants. How bad it was to make a spent fuel wet storage facility above ground level as in the GE design. A simple regulation regarding safty concerns should have nixed this dubious "cost effective" design feature. We all know what happened at Fukishima with this design. In the commercial arena the USA had the likes of the Washington Public Power Supply (WPPS) board of directors deciding that it was desirable to have 3 different reactor designs at one site. They were sold a bill of goods that big was beautiful and that variety was the spice of life. It did not matter that it took 6 years to build one plant. The second and third plants at the Site reached 30% and 70% completion before it was decided they were too expensive. A good regulation on technical management know-how and design assurance should have been required by regulation. Controling management capability may sound socialistic, but it is warranted in a capitalistic system where cost accounting trumps safety and environmental accounting. The current effort in China to build nuclear plants, considering the lack of control on necessary high integrity, safety and environment management, will lead to disasters like the Fukishima one and other notable Russian and US "accidents". Germany and Japan may have gotten the message. Hopefully LENR will help avoid a Chinese and Indian nuclear disaster. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: Jones Beene To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 9:20 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:BrightSource From: a.ashfield The Andasol 1 plant cost around €300 million (US$380 million) to build … It produces power at $0.35/kWh which is guaranteed for 25 years(!) With successful plants like that who needs failures? If you live in a country with little coal, hydro, oil or gas, 35 cents is about average. Electricity costs more than that in Germany, Denmark and a few other countries with better resources than Spain. With Russia doubling the price of natural gas every 5 years - that 35 cent price will look great in a decade, and it is guaranteed. There is no doubt the French did it right going to almost all nuclear, at a time when it was affordable - since like Spain, they have little coal, hydro, oil or gas. Now they have electricity for half the price of most of Europe. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/France/ But what is the real cost of a nuclear meltdown, especially in a country with high tourism income? If the ratepayer in France had to pay for insurance against Fukushima type accidents, the cost could be closer to that of solar in Spain. The only way the USA could have achieved the same reliable nuclear program as France did is essentially with Socialism, and a national policy for nuclear. Having coal made that policy impossible here – so we did not do that, and now the cost of nuclear is through the roof. In the long run, any renewable like solar at high initial cost is better in the long run than even nuclear … unless we reprocess – like the French do. Impossible in the USA due to politics. Interesting fact which is more than a metaphor for solar – the Golden Gate Bridge was almost not built because the price seemed incredibly high at the time. Nowadays, with the 6 buck toll, it returns the initial investment every 6 months.
