In article , Roger Shoaf says...

Jim,

Any endeavor of man has benefits and costs. The United States has been
collecting a tax on all of the power generated at all of this countries
nuclear power plants for years promising to build a repository for the
waste.

Hmm. So now it's the government's responisibility? If this
were a discussion about education, or welfare, or product
liability, the term "nanny state" would be thrust into play
at this point.

Why shouldn't Entergy Co. be required to run its buisiness
*without* government assurances that they will be bailed out
in the end? And by 'bailed out' I mean, 'the nanny state will
step in and buy all the fuel rods and the decrepit plant, for
one dollar, at the end if it's lifetime.' Because that's the
kind of subsidy that apparently is needed to make the nuclear
power business a paying proposition.

As I remember it, if you were to stack all of the spent fuel rods in one
place it would fit inside an average high school gymnasium. This is not a
whole lot of stuff to store in such a way as to protect the public.

Yep, and if you removed all the space from inside the atoms in the
fuel rod assemblies, you could fit them all inside a teacup. My
point being, you *can't* stack them in a swimming pool, and you know
that. Saying so is deceptive. If they *could* do that, they would.
Trust me. They're having enought trouble stacking *one* plant's
spent fuel in one swimming pool right now, in Buchannan, NY. The
pool is full and for them to keep running the plan they've got to
start taking the older stuff out so the hot stuff can go in.

Otherwise Entergy corp. has to shut the plant down.

The longer we delay Yucca Mountain, the longer we delay the benefits of
building more nuclear power plants. Now you seem to have almost a religious
belief that nuclear power is bad.

NO! I don't. You mis-state my comments sir. They are factual
and true. "Bad" or 'good' in this case is not of interest. The
question is, can a company make money doing this, amortized over
the lifetime of the plant.

To put it another way, it's not fair to stockholders if a company
sticks all of it liabilies in one box, and then sticks that box
under the bed to cover it up. Then they go and tout how much
profit they make and how good a deal their stock represents. There's
been a lot of that going on lately, too. With other energy
companies - it seems to run with the business.

Unless the *full* costs are laid on the table, any discussion
of cost/benefit is a lie. Plain and simple. And it's in the
industries interests to de-emphasize the costs.

I however do not hold such a belief. I
feel that the advantages gained from nuclear power far outweigh the risks
and the costs.

OK, but be aware that the folks who are giving you the balance
sheets are lying, to some degree or another. Oh, they won't *say*
'we're lying.' They might say, it costs $36B to do a decomissioning
one day, then the next day, hey, fire sale! it costs only seven.
At the end they have a vested interest in understating their
liabilies because they are for-profit companies and it lets them
get better ROI. And this includes the spent fuel issue.

Consider the costs of the alternatives.

No. This part of the discussion isn't about how bad something
else is. It's about the real cost/benfit analysis of
nuclear power. Let's stay focussed.

Cheap power is good.

Agree! Get private companies out of the business, so the ROI issue
goes away, *or* force them to state the real costs of long term
nuclear generation, without goobermint subsidy, *or* be prepared
for the public to have to pick up the tab when the rent comes due.

I suggest you contact entergy corp and request that a few
casks be delivered to your house, straight away. They'd be
happy do comply.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================