thunder wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:26:51 -0700, Calif Bill wrote:


The capitol costs are out of whack because of the government rules.
15-20 years to get all the approvals and build. Then you have to get a
license to run the plant. Can not get a license until after
construction is finished. One of the killers for Seabrook (i think that
is the one). Cumo opposed the license and the rate payers are still
paying for a finished nuke plant that never operated. Also a reason
rates are inflated with nuclear.

Seabrook is in New Hampshire. There were protests, but at least one of
it's reactors is operational. Shoreham was the plant you are thinking
of. It was built on Long Island, but never used. For what it's worth,
the government approval process has been streamlined, somewhat, but
frankly, if *any* project needs government oversight, it's the building
and operation of nuclear power plants.

No one has said there should be no regulations, only reasonable
regulations the same as any other industry that handles toxic,
flammable, or hazardous materials, To have the things we have to day
there are many companies handling these materials daily.

I believe I read that the French can permit a nuclear plant, and have it
in operation in 5 years. I know a chemical plant that uses several
hundred thousand gallons of Benzene, IPA,Toluene and other solvents can
be permitted and in operation in about three years. There is no excuse
for taking 10 to 20 years for a nuclear power plant as it does in the US.

One of the biggest jokes I know of is the people who consider the
pharmaceutical industry, with several tons of Ethylene oxide (a
compressed gas used for sterilization) as safe industry, and protest
against the chemical company with a couple of hundred gallons of
solvent. Personally if it goes I will take the solvent, as that
magnitude of compressed gas would level the plant and surrounded area if
it exploded.