Re: [cdn-nucl-l] Norris McDonald interview, Feb 2003 Nuclear News

[AtomicRod@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/27/03 4:13:38 PM, garlandw@mcmaster.ca writes:


> One other point, I have always been a promoter of using price as a
> conservation tool.  Ie, capitalism can work but the true costs need to be
> factored into the bottom line.  So I was taken aback by his rejection of
> that idea.  I can see his point and it is a good one.  A conservation tax
> would probably do more damage to the community than good, especially since
> the tax revenue would not likely be effectively funneled back into green
> solutions anyway.  More likely the corporate pockets will get fuller.  One
> day, we will respond to oil shortages but I predict it won't be until there
> are actual shortages, and not a moment sooner.  Such is human nature.


I am a great believer in the use of true cost to help people make decisions. When it comes to nuclear versus fossil power, that price signal would overwhelmingly favor nuclear power. However, I am not advocating increasing the price of fossil power, I simply think that the cost of nuclear power needs to be made more visible to people.

Here in the US, wholesale prices for electrical power have reached as much as $150 per MW-hour in the past week due to a huge run up in natural gas prices.

At the same time, electricity from nuclear power plants costs electric utilities about $2 per MW-hour. 

Consumers will never be told how it is that they can still buy power from the local monopoly for $7-10 per MW-hour when the wholesale, free market price is so high. Since the price is not posted on every street corner, like it is with gasoline, most consumers will never even know how much of a bargain they are getting from their local nuclear power station.

Rod Adams