[Phys-l] power-plant policy

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 03/19/2011 10:50 PM, Bernard Cleyet wrote:

> Lotsa inland power stations -- they use cooling towers -- the reason
> is CAPITALISM.  i.e. any way to save money to make more profit.

I beg to differ.  Nuclear power plants are expensive.  In the US 
they are very heavily subsidized.  If capitalist market forces had 
been given free rein, *none* of the US plants would ever have been 
built.

And that doesn't even count the net-present-value of long term
storage of the spent fuel and other waste.  This must be considered
an unsolved problem.  Right now the de-facto policy it to store
spent fuel beside the reactor indefinitely.  As we have seen in 
the last week, this is not a particularly brilliant solution.

And that doesn't count the cost of proliferation of nuclear
weapons.  The nuclear power industry likes to say they just make
electricity, and they have nothing to do with weapons ... but 
it's just not true.  See e.g. Iran.

=========

In the other pan of the balance, we have coal-fired power plants,
which compete against the nuclear plants.  I mention this because
there are some pretty serious distortions in that market, too.
That is, a lot of decisions that have been made depend on *not* 
accurately reckoning the overall cost of operating coal-fired
plants.

So we have one filthy and unsustainable industry competing against
another.  A pox on both their houses.  It's high time to choose a
different path.

==========

More generally, I'm not interested in debating whether we have too 
much capitalism or not enough capitalism.  It's not the right question.  
Nowhere near the right question.