ScribbleLive

Conclusion<br/>Over the last ten years, the ownership of an increasing number of nuclear power plants has been transferred to a relatively small number of very large corporations. These large corporations have adopted business structures that create separate limited liability subsidiaries for each nuclear plant, and in a number of instances, separate operating and ownership entities that provide additional liability buffers between the nuclear plant and its ultimate owners. The limited liability structures being utilized are effective mechanisms for transferring profits to the parent/owner while avoiding tax payments. They also provide a financial shield for the parent/owner if an accident, equipment failure, safety upgrade, or unusual maintenance need at one particular plant creates a large, unanticipated cost. The parent/owner can walk away, by declaring bankruptcy for that separate entity, without jeopardizing its other nuclear and non-nuclear investments. This report examines the recent trend towards the use of limited liability corporations in the nuclear industry, often as part of multi-tiered holding companies, and identifies numerous concerns related to the use of such business structures.<br/>pdfs\SYNAPS2.pdf

www.newsmax.com Conservative Newsmax appears to be one of the first predicting unlikely possibility of core melt “I have no reason to believe that the amount of radioactivity that
would be released in an event like that would be very much. It
probably would not be. In the absence of any fuel damage, which they
haven’t reported . . . it wouldn’t be a lot of radioactivity at all.”
They have 24 hours or so to avoid a core meltdown, he says. But if one
occurs, two scenarios could follow: The good outcome would mirror what
happened at Three Mile Island, while the bad one could involve what he
called a “Chernobyl scenario, where the damage to the reactor was such
that the integrity of the structures were damaged

@lilymunster, it's looking that way. If you dress your dog up in a suit it can probably get some taxpayer funding to build the plant too. ;)

@lilymunster, pretty sure you could too. I was just taking one result of the conclusion of the Synapse Energy Economics study, name that "They also provide a financial shield for the parent/owner if an accident, equipment failure, safety upgrade, or unusual maintenance need at one particular plant creates a large, unanticipated cost. The parent/owner can walk away, by declaring bankruptcy for that separate entity, without jeopardizing its other nuclear and non-nuclear investments." one step further. <br> Obviously and legally, nobody will properly compensated after an accident. But it appears there is nothing stopping the parent company from siphoning off the profits from an end of license nuclear plant, declaring the holding company bankrupt and skipping out on the costly decommissioning expense, ultimately passing that responsibility to the tax payers.

@dean, good to hear this test went okay. Did you see your heart in motion? :)