ECHOES AND UPDATES

1) Neo-Nazi Noel Perrin (Oct. editorial), we see, also authored an article "The case against abundant, cheap energy" in Quest 81: "I don't want nuclear technology (or solar, or any other kind) to work because the blessings of abundant energy are even more to be feared than its risks," he says,"...Goodbye to the vegetable garden, except as an act of eccentricity." Never mind that the Untermenschen (subhumans) of Harlem or Watts do not, like Dartmouth professors, have vegetable gardens to say goodbye to; but above all, while the "supertechnologists" would leave him the choice of physical exercise, vegetable gardens or a life without electrical appliances, he opposes the abundance of energy for everybody else. Why? Because like his spiritual forefathers, he cannot conceive of a society that is not gleichgeschaltet (all switched one way).

2) "The lousy economics of nuclear power:" The chart below shows the, cost of a kilowatt-hour from nuclear or coal-fired plants in the year they went on line. They are close, with alternating advantages. This is not, of course, the general cost of nuclear or coal-fired power, since the great majority of plants are not in their first years. That cost has been consistently lower for nuclear power; in spite of the horrendous costs inflicted on it by delays and harassment, the just released 1982 figures still show a slight edge: the average nuclear kWh cost 3.1 cts vs. 3.5 cts for coal (7.0 cts for oil). This includes plant depreciation, and in the case of nuclear power, provision for waste disposal and decommissioning. The capacity factor (average to capacity load) was 61.0% for nuclear, 54.1% for coal. The fraction of electric energy delivered was 13% and 53.2% respectively (6.6% oil; the rest is hydro and gas, with the usual roughly 1% for solar, wind and chicken manure).