“An energy park would be a grouping of ten to forty power plants in one large area. Some of the plants might be coal, some nuclear, or they might be all of one type. An all nuclear plant complex has been called a “nuclear energy center.” The would have to be constructed on a gradual but steady basis – one or two would be completed each year. A variation of the energy park would be the “integrated fuel cycle facility” (IFCF), a complex of nuclear reprocessing and fabrication plants in one area. One rationale for the IFCF is that it would eliminate transportation from the reprocessing plant to the fabrication plant. This would make nuclear materials – particularly plutonium – less susceptible to sabotage or theft.
The utilities believe, among other things, that energy parks will save them money. General Electric, which will benefit by increased reactor sales, concluded that a twenty plant nuclear park would be 10 percent cheaper than twenty nuclear plants at ten dispersed sites (2 plants to a site). (footnote 11: Source given as General Electric Company: Assessment of Energy Parks vs dispersed electric Power generation facilities, Washington, DC, May 30, 1975, pp. ES-5)
Source: The Menance of Atomic Energy, Ralph Nader, John Abbott, Outback Press, ISBN 0 86888 051 5, 1977, Australian edition, Collingswood, Melbourne. pp 133 – end quote.