http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbc...NEWS/908210342

if they can forestall putting enough money into their decommissioning fund
they'll be borrowing money against the future at which point they'll call
upon the taxpayers to bail them out. borrowing from peter (future
taxpayers) to pay paul (the shareholders). another example of (bottom up)
"redistribution of wealth".

in the article they say "...there's no shortfall..." that is of course
unless the plant has to SHUT DOWN BEFORE it's scheduled to! why would they
want to have all that money tied up? paints a better picture for their
shareholders.

the typical point pro-nuke people concede to the anti-nuke people is
"nuclear waste disposal/storage", this is ANOTHER reason anti-nuke people
can grasp upon, the industry is resisting every which way to put away enough
money to responsibly decommission their plants. putting the burden on your
children and your children's children. it's a beauty scheme.


b.w.

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:34:43 -0500, "William Wixon"
wrote:

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbc...NEWS/908210342

if they can forestall putting enough money into their decommissioning fund
they'll be borrowing money against the future at which point they'll call
upon the taxpayers to bail them out. borrowing from peter (future
taxpayers) to pay paul (the shareholders). another example of (bottom up)
"redistribution of wealth".

in the article they say "...there's no shortfall..." that is of course
unless the plant has to SHUT DOWN BEFORE it's scheduled to! why would they
want to have all that money tied up? paints a better picture for their
shareholders.

the typical point pro-nuke people concede to the anti-nuke people is
"nuclear waste disposal/storage", this is ANOTHER reason anti-nuke people
can grasp upon, the industry is resisting every which way to put away enough
money to responsibly decommission their plants. putting the burden on your
children and your children's children. it's a beauty scheme.


b.w.


And after we decommission all the nuke plants were do we get our
electricity? Why do they talk about decomm instead of refurbish or
replacement?

Quite awhile back there was a TV show on environmental clean up, they
covered the decomm of nuke plants, and the decomm of hydro dams. ( the
dams screw up the fish and the tree huggers and fish lovers say you
must every last trace of concrete and steel and put the river back to
before the dam was there.)

So the only option left is burn fossil fuels to generate power or
build wind farms, but wind farms harm migrating birds, so that leaves
burning oil, but that creates green house gasses. What the hell do we
do????

On topic part.... The way I understand it: the end of life of a nuke
plant is due to neutron embrittlement of the steel, both in the
reactor vessel and the rebar of the containment building. So you
replace it all and update the control center, a new computer to
replace the old one should be cheaper smaller and way faster than the
old 1970's model there now.

Is there a steel company in the USA that can make a forging big enough
for a reactor vessel anymore?

Thank You,
Randy

Remove 333 from email address to reply.