Crystal River Nuke Crack

Today's St. Petersburg Times explains what's going on with the crack in the 42 inch thick containment wall of Progress Energy's Crystal River Nuclear Plant. Some items you might want to know:

• It's too soon to know what repairs will cost or whether the plant shutdown, originally scheduled to end in December, will need to be extended.
  
  
• It's also too early to say whether repairs could affect the bills of Progress Energy customers.
  
  
• To remove the old generators, workers began cutting a hole 23 feet wide and 23 feet high in the wall of the 168-foot-tall building. They found the crack while using an ultra-high-powered water jet to cut through the concrete.
  
  
• The steam generators had been in the plant since it opened in 1977. Plans to replace them began six years ago. The new units were built in Canada and shipped by barge to Crystal River. They cost $65 million.
  
  
• The utility has raised the possibility that the process of releasing the tension from the steel tendons inside the wall somehow contributed to the crack's formation, NRC spokesman Roger Hannah said.

They don't know how long the plant will be down or how much it will cost ratepayers. To replace the generators, which cost $65 million, they have to cut a hole in the containment. And they think the process of doing that caused the crack.

All this makes the point that nukes are problematic. That means problems are automatic. The nuclear fuel is so dangerous, you need a 42 inch thick wall to keep it in. And they didn't even think about cutting that open to replace the steam generators back in 1977. Everything about nukes is very expensive and dangerous. The problem is that radioactive materials can be dangerous for up to 10,000 years. That's a long time. You can spill some coal dust and clean it up right away. You can crack your solar panel, and fix it the same day.

Another question that must be asked: given Progress Energy's poor record at Crystal River, should they be allowed to build more nukes?

Finally, if Floridians are going to accept all the risk of these nukes, and be stuck with the waste for thousands of year, can Progress Energy guarantee that all the power will be used in Florida and not shipped to North Carolina? Carolina is growing and Florida is shrinking.

It isn't needed, it's too dangerous, it's too expensive.

Storms Introduces Anti-Credit Scoring Bill

Sen. Ronda Storms (R-Brandon) introduced an anti-credit scoring bill, S 662. The premise is simple: insurance companies can't prove that there is a link between low credit scores and high claims. Insurers want to use your credit score and your education score to calculate your insurance rates. Even if your credit score was wrong because of a mistake, they would still use it to raise your insurance rates and you might never know. Unfortunately, the bill only addresses auto insurance, but this reform is needed across all lines.

The email below from the Heartland Institute opposes S 662. FCAN supports S 662. The Heartland Institute says, “Study after study has shown a direct correlation between lower individual credit scores and higher claims.” That is probably true, but correlation is not causation. In other words, certain things might happen after other things happen, but that doesn’t prove the first thing caused the second thing.

There are a lot of reason you could have a low credit score, including, for instance, buying a house or mistakes on your report. There are a lot of reasons you might have less education than others. But there is no way to prove those things lead to higher claims rates. Wikipedia has a great article on the subject. Here is one example of the false logic the insurance companies want to use: Drowning deaths are rising at the same time as ice cream sales. Ice cream causes drowning. The conclusion is obviously false.

FCAN will support S 662 and we urge you to call Sen. Storms and thank her for introducing this bill. – Bill Newton, Florida Consumer Action Network

******************************

From the desk of

Tammy Nash

Mainstream Media Specialist

tnash@heartland.org

________________________________________

Proposed Florida Information Restrictions a Bad Idea, Heartland Analyst Says

The director of The Heartland Institute's Florida Insurance Project today criticized a state senator's proposal to ban the use of credit scoring, education, and occupation in the setting of insurance rates.

On November 10, Sen. Rhonda Storms (R-Brandon) filed Senate Bill 662, which would make it illegal for insurers to use a wide variety of information when they set insurance rates.

"Study after study has shown a direct correlation between lower individual credit scores and higher claims experience. Insurers have long been using credit scores as a widely accepted and effective predictor of risk," says Christian R. Cámara, a policy analyst at The Heartland Institute.

"Restricting or prohibiting their use as an underwriting tool will further exacerbate Florida's already-shaky insurance market and will cause a spike in premiums for all consumers, regardless of their credit score," noted Cámara.

Cámara runs the Florida insurance effort for the Center for Risk, Regulation and Markets, a project of The Heartland Institute. He has written and spoken extensively on Florida insurance issues.