Russia Unveils Detailed Plans To Build 21 New Nuclear Power Units By 2030

[Kelvin Mace]

99. Hmmmm...

I don't know how this "skimp on safety to make a buck" crap got started; but it's just not true.

I would say the most recent example would be putting the fuel pool ABOVE the reactor where any damage to the reactor can the compromise the integrity of the new/spent fuel rods. Also, putting reactors in major tsunami/earthquake zones. It was a great cost-cutting move.

U.S. corporations have a LONG history of putting profit before safety. The only reason the record improved is greater government oversight. Unfortunately, government oversight is now on the decline, so it is back to trusting corporations to police themselves.

You are perfectly correct that "CEOs of the nuclear industry know that if they screw up; they lose an investment of BILLIONS of dollars and years of time" but your next sentence, "It just isn't worth it." is simply wrong.

CEO's get a major part of their salary based on profits. If a cost-cutting measure will put an extra quarter million or more in his pocket he will do it. So what if the measure results in some disaster down the line costing the company billions? He probably won't be there when the problem blows up, and if he is, he will just pull the ripcord on his platinum parachute and bail with tens of millions.

And in some cases, companies make so much money that even MAJOR disasters costing billions of dollars are not a problem since the company makes that kind of money quarterly. BP isn't sweating the Deep Water Horizon disaster because everybody from the local police up to the Coast Guard answers to them. The Exxon Valdez was a pretty nasty disaster, but other than the captain, the environment, and Alaska fisherman, nobody really suffered. Exxon drug out the court case for TWO decades and got the fines and civil judgments reduced. Initially they were ordered to pay $5.28 billion in damages, actual and punitive. But, they didn't like that so they appealed to the 9th Circuit and the award was cut in half. They still didn't like that, and their friends on the Supreme Court cut the damages to $507 million in 2008. Five years later they have only paid 75% of that and are in court fighting to avoid paying the rest plus interest.

So, after 24 years, Exxon has paid only $380 million in punitive/actual damages, or a bit less than $16 million a year. They can find that kind of money lying around in their soda machines and couch cushions.

So, again, while I believe it is possible to build much safer reactors, I do not trust any for-profit utility to do it. The people who ultimately make decision that endanger the safety of the public are in no way held accountable, and the profits far outweigh the losses. In the case of the nuclear industry, the companies know they can simply walk away and stick the people with the bill.

I agree with you that the politics shouldn't overrule science, but neither should a P&L statement overrule public safety.

Yes, the airlines are much safer today, but remember they had to be dragged kicking and screaming all the way.