Too cheap to meter: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:54, 18 February 2020

Latest revision as of 18:01, 24 August 2025

(22 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Slogan for plentiful services}}

'''Too cheap to meter''' describes a [[commodity]] so inexpensive that it is cheaper and less bureaucratic to simply provide it for a [[flat fee]] or even [[Gratis versus libre|free]] and make a [[Profit (economics)|profit]] from associated services. It can also refer to services which it would cost more to itemize bills for the service than it costs to provide the service in the first place, thus it being simpler and less expensive to just provide it in a bundle along with other services. Examples of such services are becoming common; [[Netflix]] is an all-you-can-eat monthly fee, and many [[internet]] plans no longer have a [[data cap]].

[[File:Nuclear Power Plant Cattenom.jpg|thumb|"Too cheap to meter" is a slogan first attributed to nuclear power.]]

'''Too cheap to meter''' describesrefers to a [[commodity]] so inexpensive that it is cheaper and less bureaucratic to simply provide it for a [[flat fee]] or even [[Gratis versus libre|free]] and make a [[Profit (economics)|profit]] from associated services. ItOriginally can also referapplied to services[[nuclear whichpower]], itthe wouldphrase costis morealso to itemize billsused for theservices servicethat thancan itbe costsprovided toat providesuch thelow servicecost inthat the firstadditional place, thus it being simpler and less expensive to just provide it in a bundle along with other services. Examplescost of suchitemized servicesbilling arewould becomingoutweigh common;the [[Netflix]] is an all-you-can-eat monthly fee, and many [[internet]] plans no longer have a [[data cap]]benefits.

==Origins==

Line 8 ⟶ 10:

It was this statement that caught the eye of most reviewers and was the headline in a ''[[New York Times]]'' article covering the speech, subtitled "It will be too cheap for our children to meter, Strauss tells science writers."{{sfn|Times|1954}} Only a few days later, Strauss was a guest on ''[[Meet the Press]]''. When the reporters asked him about the quotation and the viability of "commercial power from atomic piles," Strauss replied that he expected his children and grandchildren would have power "too cheap to be metered, just as we have water today that's too cheap to be metered."{{sfn|Wellock|2016}}

The statement was contentious from the start. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission itself, in testimony to the U.S. Congress only months before, lowered the expectations for fission power, projecting only that the costs of reactors could be brought down to about the same as those for conventional sources.<ref>{{cite magazine |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,893336,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081214124118/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,893336,00.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=December 14, 2008 |title=ATOMIC ENERGY: The Nuclear Revolution |magazine=Time Magazine |date=6 February 1956}}</ref> A later survey found dozens of statements from the period that suggested it was widely believed that nuclear energy would be more expensive than coal, at least in the foreseeable future.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://cns-snc.ca/media/media/toocheap/toocheap.html |title=Too Cheap to Meter? |first=M.J. |last=Brown |date=14 December 2016 |website=Canadian Nuclear Society}}</ref> [[James T. Ramey]], who would later become thean AEC Commissioner, noted: "Nobody took Strauss' statement very seriously."{{sfn|Wellock|2016}}

The phrase has also been attributed to [[Walter Marshall, Baron Marshall of Goring|Walter Marshall]], a pioneer of [[nuclear power]] in the United Kingdom.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/792209.stm |title=Nuclear doubts gnaw deeper |newspaper=[[BBC News]] |date= 15 June 2000}}</ref> There is no documentary evidence that he invented or used the term.

==Fusion or fission?==

Strauss's prediction did not come true, and over time it became a target of those pointing to the industry's record of overpromising and underdelivering.{{sfn|Wellock|2016}} — which is now largely realized to have been caused by the transition from the AEC position as a champion of nuclear power to the NRC position of a regulator focused exclusively on regulation; only three reactors have been commissioned in the United States since that transition.

In 1980, the [[Atomic Industrial Forum]] wrote an article quoting his son, Lewis H. Strauss, claiming that he was talking about not [[nuclear fission]] but [[nuclear fusion]].<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |title=Report on public understanding of nuclear energy, #142 |date=May 1980 |editor1-first=Robert |editor1-last=Livingston |editor2-last=Bianchi |editor2-first=Ron |publisher=Atomic Industrial Forum}}</ref> AsHe claimed his father was not specific about this in the speech because the AEC's [[Project Sherwood]] was still classified at the time, he gave the speech,so he was not allowed to refer to this work directly. Since that time, this claim has been widely repeated, including in 2003 comments by Donald Hintz, chairman of the [[Nuclear Energy Institute]].{{sfn|Wellock|2016}}

To support that argument, Strauss and biographer Pfau point to this statement: "industry would have electrical power from atomic furnaces in five to fifteen years."{{sfn|Billington|2010|p=238}} It was claimed that the timeline implies that Strauss was referring to fusion, not fission.{{sfn|Wellock|2016}} Although it is not a direct quote, this version of the statement appeared in the ''[[New York Times]]'' overview of the speech the next day.{{sfn|Times|1954}} The statement in question is originally:

Line 21 ⟶ 23:

<blockquote>Dr. Lawrence Hafstad, whom all of you surely know, happens to be speaking, today, in Brussels before the Congress of Industrial Chemistry. He heads the Reactor Development Division of the Atomic Energy Commission. Therefore, he expects to be asked, "How soon will you have industrial atomic electric power in the United States?" His answer is "from 5 to 15 years depending on the vigor of the development effort."{{sfn|Strauss|1954|p=9}}</blockquote>

ThisHafstad statementwas isin referringcharge directlyof tothe development of fission reactors by the AEC, and this statement immediately precedes the "too cheap to meter" statement.{{sfn|Strauss|1954|p=9}} The same is true of his statements on ''Meet the Press'', which are ain direct reply to a question about fission. The speech as a whole contains large sections about the development of fission power and the difficulties that the Commission was having communicating this fact. He wryly notes receiving letters addressed to the "Atomic Bomb Commission" and then quotes a study that demonstrates the public is largely ignorant of the development of atomic power.{{sfn|Strauss|1954|p=5}} He goes on to briefly recount the development of fission, noting a letter from [[Leo Szilard]] of sixteen years earlier where he speaks of the possibility of a [[chain reaction]].{{sfn|Strauss|1954|p=7}}

The speech as a whole contains large sections about the development of fission power and the difficulties that the Commission was having communicating this fact. He wryly notes receiving letters addressed to the "Atomic Bomb Commission" and then quotes a study that demonstrates the public is largely ignorant of the development of atomic power.{{sfn|Strauss|1954|p=5}} He goes on to briefly recount the development of fission, noting a letter from [[Leo Szilard]] of sixteen years earlier where he speaks of the possibility of a [[chain reaction]].{{sfn|Strauss|1954|p=7}} A later examination of the topic concluded: "there is no evidence in Strauss's papers at the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library to indicate fusion was the hidden subject of his speech."{{sfn|Wellock|2016}}

Strauss viewed hydrogen fusion as the ultimate power source and was eager to develop the technology as quickly as possible and urged the Project Sherwood researchers to make rapid progress, even suggesting a million-dollar prize to the individual or team that succeeded first.<ref>Bromberg, Joan Lisa (1982) ''Fusion: Science, Politics, and the Invention of a New Energy Source'' MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, [https://archive.org/details/fusionsciencepol0000brom/page/97 p. 44], {{ISBN|0-262-02180-3}}</ref> However Strauss was not optimistic about the rapid commercialization of fusion power. In August 1955 after fusion research was made public, he cautioned that "there has been nothing in the nature of breakthroughs that would warrant anyone assuming that this [fusion power] was anything except a very long range—and I would accent the word 'very'—prospect."{{sfn|Wellock|2016}}

==Other uses==

The phrase became famous enough that it has been used in other contexts, especially in [[post-scarcity]] discussions. For instance, landline (and cable) [[internet bandwidth]] is now often billed on a flat monthly fee with no usage limits, and it is predicted that the introduction of [[5G]] will do the same for mobile data, making it "too cheap to meter."<ref>{{cite techreporttech report |url=https://www.abiresearch.com/market-research/product/1024356-5g-too-cheap-to-meter/ |title=5G: Too Cheap to Meter? |date=2016 |publisher=ABI}}</ref> The same has been said for technology as a whole.<ref>{{cite magazine |url=https://www.wired.com/2009/06/mf-freer/ |title=Tech Is Too Cheap to Meter: It’sIt's Time to Manage for Abundance, Not Scarcity |first=Chris |last=Anderson |magazine=Wired |date=22 June 2009}}</ref>

Prior to 1985, water meters were not required in [[New York City]]; water and sewage fees were assessed based on building size and number of water fixtures; [[water metering]] was introduced as a conservation measure.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1985/09/15/realestate/city-law-on-water-meters-angers-building-owners.html |title=City Law on Water Meters Angers Building Owners |work=The New York Times |date=15 September 1985 |last1=Goncharoff |first1=Katya }}</ref><ref>{{cite report |url=https://web.osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093008/06n2.pdf |work=[[New York City Department of Environmental Protection]] |id=2006-N-2 |date=2006 |title=Universal Water Metering Program }}</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Cornucopian]]

==See References also==

*[[Cornucopianism]]

===Citations===

*[[Free public transport]]

==References==

{{Reflist}}

===Bibliography=Sources==

* {{cite techreporttech report |url=https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1613/ML16131A120.pdf |title=Remarks prepared by Lewis L. Strauss |publisher=United States Atomic Energy CommisionCommission |date=16 September 1954 |first=Lewis |last=Strauss |ref=harv}}

* {{cite web |url=https://public-blogwww.nrc-gateway.gov/2016reading-rm/06basic-ref/03students/history-101/too-cheap-to-meter-a-history-of-the-phrase/.html |website=NCRNRC Blog |first=Thomas |last=Wellock |date=3 June 2016 |title='Too Cheap to Meter', a history of the phrase|ref=harv}}

* {{cite book |title=Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations |first=James |last=Billington |publisher=Courier |date=2010 |isbn=9780486472881 |url=https://books.google.cacom/books?id=91IFAYFhtOMC&pg=PA238 |ref=harv}}

* {{cite news |title=Abundant Power from Atom Seen; It will be too cheap for our children to meter, Strauss tells science writers |newspaper=New York Times |date=17 September 1954 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1954/09/17/archives/abundant-power-from-atom-seen-it-will-be-too-cheap-for-our-children.html |ppage=5 |ref=CITEREFTimes1954}}

==External links==

* Steve Cohn (1997). [https://books.google.com/books?id=qQu_YotSU94C&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=nader+%22critical+mass%22&source=bl&ots=6jcCg3X0P6&sig=FV7rMA2EK_4HVp3DTdk0TGb7gKo&hl=en&ei=oS8uSqTQEYWVkAW289CHCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnumpg=6#PPA134,M1PA134 Too cheap to meter: an economic and philosophical analysis of the nuclear dream]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Too cheap to meter}}