Re: [Marxism] EPW Editorial

[dave.walters@xxxxxxxxxxx]

I'm not going to reply to the various newspaper editorials Sukla insists on 
posting. I could counter 
with other editorials but what would be the purpose. A discussion should on 
this list, mostly, should 
be created by the participants, not the participants shilling for others they 
don't even know.
 
In one of the multiple posts by Sukla I am challenged to come up with 
"independent" sources that 
show the favorable economics of nuclear energy vs other forms of power. Other 
posts use studies 
also, and in fact, they misrepresent one of the more widely read studies from 
MIT. They take the 
static, high price of NP based on the highest factos. But MIT also shows what 
happens (if you read 
the whole report and not just the executive summery) when you bring actual 
costs inline to reality 
but showing a more realistic interest rate and not the high of 12%...but, 
anyway:
 
In 2003 the MIT published the outcome of a 2-year study of nuclear energy 
prospects in the 
USA. Adjusting its assumptions to those more in line with industry expectations 
($1500/kW & 4 
year construction, 90% capacity factor, interest rate 12%, and adding fees & 
taxes) the generation 
cost comes out at 4.2 c/kWh, the same as coal without any carbon cost. And 
that's with the very 
high unrealistic interest rate of 12%. Even knock that down a little and price 
falls.
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
 
Other reports come from
Canadian Energy Research Institute
http://www.ceri.ca/
 
University of Chicago 2004
http://www.anl.gov/Special_Reports/NuclEconAug04.pdf
 
All show NP as cheap or close to that of any other source but hydro, still the 
worlds leader in cheap power.
 
The next post by Sukla, also a repost from another source make a bold statement:
 
"Why is nuclear energy developed only by government-run companies?" 
Odd. What is the point of the question? First, nuclear power in the 
US, commercial power is always developed by private company with R & 
D from universities, often with gov't grants. Secondly, and far more 
importantly, out side the US this is true *which is a good thing *. 
It reflects the fact that MOST electrical generation and gird operations 
are state enterprises, often, as in Mexico and France,  the result of 
working class victories before or after WWII. Does the person making 
asking this question think it's better than development be done by 
private sources? That it somehow legitimizes an energy source by being 
private? This is a common strain of reasoning by much of the worlds anti-
nuclear activists.
 
Sukla's muse goes on to ask: "Why do the US and British governments fail to 
convince investors to build new nuclear plants, if it is really 'the cheapest'?"
Sorry? There are 32 proposals to build nuclear plants in the US. 1 has started 
the Construction and Operating License procedure (after which they break 
ground). 
All have private investment (and, of course, the 1.8 cents subsidy/loan 
guarantee 
provide by the gov't?and recommended by the MIT study)for the first 6 NPPs 
built. None of the new build proposals are based on anything but private 
capital. . .
 
My view is that the private funding of NPPs is a *bad thing * not a good thing. 
We need to have a system that puts the needs of people first and not play to 
the market as if it's a profit-making playground (given that NP is very 
profitable now for operating NP plants without a dime of subsidy).
 
David________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism