Display:
The cost of the lawsuit to the activists doing the suing is the cost of lawyers fees, which is often pro-bono, and if the judge takes particular offense at the waste of time, they get stuck with court costs as well. The cost to the utility are lawyers fees, distruption to construction schedules, interest accumulated on building loans for 3 billion dollar projects, and the purchase of electricity from merchant operators to cover the commitments the not-yet-operating plant isnt meeting. This is not a symmetrical cost, and it was successful in deterring any build whatsoever in the us for decades. If the laws congress has recently passed in the nuclear area seem strange, its because they are designed to counter this tactic.
by Thomas on Fri Jan 15th, 2010 at 09:03:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Utility legal fees are built into overhead costs (and to some degree rate-recovered), activist lawyers are not often pro-bono, there is no construction schedule prior to permits being issued (just a plan), there are no electricity commitments which must be covered by merchant plants or any other sources. And the US Congress doesn't pass laws to counter activist tactics, though it may pass laws to streamline the nuclear permitting process.

What deterred US nuclear build for decades had little or nothing to do with activist tactics, rather cost and safety issues, as well as little utility desire to counter the prevailing zeitgeist.  Add to that the ease of developing various nat gas, because of artificially low fossil prices, and ease and cost of financing.

Please feel free to rejoin reality at any time.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin

by Crazy Horse on Fri Jan 15th, 2010 at 09:15:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series