Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Salary Survey

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
>Public Utility Commissions of the states where the
>plants were built, that they would make a profit on them.
Oh, right. The devil made 'em do it. ;-> This sounds like nonsense to me, 
but I'm willing to change my mind in the face of anything objective. 
Somehow the thought of the Minnesota PUC guaranteeing NSP a profit for 
anything, let alone the Prairie Island and Monticello plants verges on 
supernatural. BTW the two plant I mentioned are extremely well run and 
they make money without cutting corners. NSP paid its dues.

>Navy's
>operation is very limited in scope. They have a specific purpose for their
>nuclear plants, and they don't vary from that scope.
No more limited than generating power for any other single purpose. Nor 
would their particular scope detract from the success of the program. 
Navy reactors and civilian plants both make steam to run turbines--that's 
the specific purpose of both.

>Like the stateside programs cited above, they are
>bound up in the regulations of those countries.
But a helluva lot more successful than ours. Which was my point. 
Interesting thing about the Japanese is that they're doing it without 
help from a military program, but however they do it, they're making 
better use of nuclear power than we are. 

>Why don't you mention how "well-run" the Soviet nuclear program was
Because that would be stupid and irrelevant. My point was that some 
governments do it right, some don't.

>Note also that this is true for other military program
>Army/Air Force bomber program--Billy Mitchell.)
Billy Mitchell got court-martialled in the 1920's for being a bad winner. 
If you mean Curt LeMay, he's the guy who made SAC work--he didn't design 
bombers either. But the point is taken--well led programs work, badly led 
programs fail, and it doesn't seem to make much difference who the 
leaders actually work for.

>The funny thing about this example as a "ding" against free
>market forces, is that there is virtually NOTHING free-market about public
>utilities!
You're leaping to conclusions--it wasn't a tax-and-spend liberal attack 
on a free market economy. I was only pointing out what ought to be 
obvious--namely that laissez-faire economics aren't necessarily the best 
for all situations.

Christopher Wright P.E.    |"They couldn't hit an elephant from
chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com        | this distance"   (last words of Gen.
___________________________| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania 1864)
http://www.skypoint.com/~chrisw