THE ECONOMICS OF NUCLEAR POWER

The demise of the Washington WHOOPS project was a typical case of mismanagement by bureaucracies spending other people's money. After signing come-hell-or-high water contracts by which utilities, municipalities and a plethora of other organizations would have to pay for nuclear plants even if they never produced any power, and after raising the money by municipal bonds, they went to court saying that they didn't really have any right to sign a contract like they had signed; the courts said that's right, and WHOOPS went whoops. To blame this case of bureaucracy bungling on nuclear technology is as ingenious as blaming the Crucifixion on the recent failure of an Italian bank largely controlled by the Vatican.

But logic is not what witch hunts are made of, so it is not surprising that the would-be charlatans from Sub-Charlatania now "analyze" the "lousy economics" of nuclear power; what is surprising is that the Wall Street Journal of Aug. 2 gave space for such a sham analysis by two mindless parrots, and 12 days later (as we go to press), had not printed any of the hundreds of letters that surely must have poured in reply.

The arguments presented to make a case for the "lousy economics" are not even all false: mostly they are totally absent. This, of course, conforms to the rules of a witch hunt, which requires not facts, but foam at the mouth.

The authors, Miss and Mr Hellman of the U. of R.I., do not know the difference between capacity factor and availability; they are unaware that when measured by either, coal-fired and nuclear power have been close in performance for many years in spite of the far stricter rules imposed on nuclear plants; they believe that coal-fired plants are not used as base plants; they blame the alleged diseconomy of nuclear power on its design, promotion and regulation by the bomb-makers (like bomb-maker Bradford and bomb-maker Gilinski?); they regard Alvin Weinberg (whose attitude to nuclear power has always been highly ambivalent and who coined the phrase "Faustian bargain") as the "high priest" of nuclear power...Enough?

Here are some "Oh-yeah?" questions that these amateurish bunglers evidently do not even know about: Why is the cost of nuclear power in Germany half that of coal-fired power? Why is it very much lower than coal in Britain, France and the rest of Europe? Why does it still take only 6 years to build a nuclear plant in Japan, as it did in the US in the late 60s? Why, despite the insane harassment of nuclear power in the US, is the cost of a nuclear kilowatt-hour still comparable to, and usually slightly below, a coal-fired kWh? Why is the cost of a nuclear kilowatt-hour produced by Commonwealth Edison of Illinois 40%, (yes, forty percent!) of coal-fired power?

The last question has a simple answer that takes care of the others: because Commonwealth Edison of Illinois built their nuclear plants in time. They were built by the same people from the same companies who are now building the vastly more expensive plants that take forever to build. The reason why the cost of nuclear plants has increased much faster than inflation lies in the delays and in the retroactive, punitive regulation forced on nuclear power. Both are ultimately due to the image-polishers' desire to appease the witch hunters of which the Hellmans are typical representatives.

It is, of course, true that neither Commonwealth Edison of Illinois or any other utility is likely to order a new plant under these conditions. Nor is a Muscovite likely to order automobiles to start a private taxi company in his home city. What does that prove about the economy of automobile transportation?