First, I am pro-
nuclear power. I
believe that it will be a very safe and clean
source of energy in the
future. In the past, this has not been the case. I also think that if you're not a
environmentalist, then you are
suicidal. "environmentalists" is not a
derogatory word. It is
common sense, not to say
essential to care for our environment.
But let's get this straight:
Let me tell you what
conclusions I draw from this:
-- Second category: Fine. Well respected
nuclear science research and open for
international regulations.
-- Third category: Smaller countries with only a few
reactors, which they can
handle and they're also taking part on the international
nuclear research and
safety scene. The
money and
prestige invested in these reactors, will keep them running safely.
-- There's been many many reports from the
IAEA of
incidents,
accidents and
breaches of
security regulations in this last
category. This is to be
expected when
money is tight and
technology and
equipment getting older.
These countries never made and "cost analysis", however. These reactors are mainly built for 2 reasons: cheap power at any expense and
nuclear weapons.
Neither is a
terribly good reason for building and running a nuclear power plant.
What has this got to do with this node then ? The simple answer is that what the communist regimes were doing in the 60's thru the 80's was nothing but monopoly capitalism. They were of course trying to maximize the net effect of the plants to a minimum cost.
I think my point is that only a fool would defend the running of the old nuclear plants in the world, especially those built by dubious regimes in the 60's. Also, when profit and safety are complementary, I know what will go first. With an operation where such a great deal of the costs consists of safety arrangements, I'm not sure I want it run but General Electric or Micro$oft.