No to Nukes
Veronique de Rugy's argument in "No to Nukes" (July) that nuclear power should be abandoned because it is not cost-effective is absurd. The cost of delivered nuclear power is driven largely by the cost of building the plant, which in turn is based on capital costs and labor costs, which rise in proportion to construction times; these have been wildly inflated by government actions.
Prior to 1971, the average time from groundbreaking to commencement of operation for a nuclear plant was four years; now it is 15 years. The increase is due to the National Environmental Protection Act, under which nuclear power projects have been subjected to constant delays caused by government bureaucrats who change engineering requirements during construction and legal harassment by organizations whose openly stated objective is to wreck the nuclear industry by driving up its costs.
Furthermore, capital costs have quadrupled due to endless additional requirements imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) without rational engineering justification. As a result of NRC interference, it has become nearly impossible for the nuclear industry to initiate improvements that might reduce their costs.
Worst of all, in some cases the government has capriciously acted to revoke operating licenses for nuclear plants during construction, or even after they have been completed, thereby turning multibillion-dollar investments into total losses. In the face of the uncertainty created by such arbitrary destruction of private property, it is no wonder that few have been willing to invest in additional plants.
Robert Zubrin
Lakewood, CO
The reason no nuclear power plants have been built in the last 30 years is fear. Americans are fearful of anything involving the word nuclear. That's why the medical scan originally called NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) was renamed magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Remove fear, and the playing field for nuclear energy would be reasonably level.
John Chase
Palm Harbor, FL
Letters are welcome and should be addressed to
reason 1747 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20009 fax: 202-315-3623 letters@reason.com
On July 31, we relaunched reason.com with a new look and some new features, including a news aggregation feed, Reason 24/7. Here are some reactions to the new site from around the Internet:
reason.com had plastic surgery and all-in-all, it's shaping up into a good thing.…As with many news sites, there are verticals broken up by topic such as "economics," "politics" and "culture." But users often have to click each one individually to see what stories they lead to. reason.com's verticals drop down when the cursor hovers over them to show photos and headlines behind each. Three words: Fab. U. Lous.
—Eddie Scarry, writing at Fishbowl DC, August 3
Waking up this morning and grabbing my laptop to open my browser to the new reason is like Christmas. Only Santa wears leather.
—@yeshuatrujillo, via Twitter
I might be able to tell my liberal friends I don't read Drudge anymore. Not that they'll believe me.
—reason.com commenter "Pound.Head.On.Desk"
Nice newsfeed. One of the better ones assuredly. Drudge better watch his ass, except for the cheeky headlines that pissed off the right people, he offers much less than this.
—reason.com commenter "Killazontherun"
ReasonSports? Just a thought.
—reason.com commenter "Caleb Turberville"