3 policies to fix the fission industry

[kristopher]

Eliminate government subsidies for nuclear power, which reduce the private cost of capital for new reactors while shifting the long-term costs -- and risks -- from investors to the public.

Require nuclear plant owners to buy full-coverage insurance. That would mean repealing the Price-Anderson Act, which limits liability for nuclear accidents to $12.6 billion. That's not nearly enough; consider that the damage and cleanup estimates of last year's Gulf oil spill are $34 billion to $670 billion, and the Fukushima disaster could far exceed those costs.

Require plant owners to also maintain an assurance bond adequate to cover decommissioning and waste disposal costs. This approach is often used for mining operations to ensure that the mines are properly reclaimed. In most countries, there are funds set aside for nuclear plant decommissioning and waste disposal, but it typically doesn't come close to covering the real costs.

How much these steps would increase the price of electricity generated from nuclear plants would depend on the design of the plant, its location, how it is operated, how old it is and other factors. But it would give society a better picture of the true costs of nuclear power and would make for a more accurate comparison of nuclear energy with other energy sources.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/04/nuclear_energy_heeding_the_les.html

[TheWraith]

1. All those things are already either reality, or practically the case.

There are few remaining subsidies, which only cover new construction of plants, not existing ones.

The Price-Anderson Act has NEVER been used. All nuclear plants operate on their own insurance.

Plant owners are required to maintain decommissioning costs in a holding account.

[kristopher]

2. Why do you spread false information?

On another thread you just bemoan someone doing exactly what you are now engaged in doing - spreading false information.

Union of Concerned Scientists on Nuclear Fission subsidies. The PAA has capped the nuclear industry’s liability for third-party damage to people and property for more 50 years, so let's look at just the PAA act in the text from the report. The graph shows your comments about current subsidies to be wrong.

D. Shifting Security and Accident Risks to the Public (Security and Risk Management)

...Nuclear power has two additional attributes that make it unattractive to investors. First, the period of risk exposure lasts too long. In most other sectors of the economy, the majority of the risks that investors take on last only several years, or a few decades at most. By contrast, nuclear operations span many decades—longer even than coal plants once post-closure periods prior to decommissioning are included. In par- ticular, highly radioactive and extremely long- lived wastes are not only risky but also require oversight for centuries.

Second, a single negative event can wipe out decades of gains. Although the risk of nuclear acci- dents in the United States is considered quite low, it is not zero.6 Plausible accident scenarios generate catastrophic damages, with corresponding levels of financial loss. This characteristic creates a large dis- connect between private interests (which highlight an absence of catastrophic damages thus far) and public interests (which must consider the damage that would be caused in the case of even a moderate accident, as well as the inadequacy of financial assurance mechanisms or insurance-related price signals to address the challenge).

Unlike car accidents, where one event generally has no impact on the perceived risk to unrelated drivers or auto companies, risks in the nuclear sector are systemic. An accident anywhere in the world will cause politicians and plant neighbors everywhere to reassess the risks they face and question whether the oversight and financial assurance are sufficient. Generally, the cost implications of such inquiries will be negative for reactor owners.

All of these factors, in combination with a poor track record of financial performance on new plant construction, have led investors in nuclear power to demand much higher rates of return, to shift the risks to other parties, or to steer clear of the nuclear power sector entirely. Risks are real, and if they were visibly integrated into the nuclear cost structure, the resulting price signals would guide energy investment toward technologies that have more predictable and lower risk profiles.

Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies
Doug Koplow, Earth Track, Inc.
Union of Concerned Scientists February 2011
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf

Also see Koplow's presentation here: http://www.unep.ch/etb/events/Energy%20Subsidies%20presentations/Nuclear%20Subsidies%20v2_Koplow.pdf

[TheWraith]

4. Your own graph shows current subsidies are next to nonexistent.

Less than one cent per kilowatt-hour for independently owned reactors, a little higher for publicly owned ones. And a tiny fraction of what they were historically.

[kristopher]

6. No, it shows that as the lower end of the range...

You so much trouble with basic honesty that I can't believe you aren't ashamed of yourself.

The graph speaks for itself.

[greenman3610]

5. if Price Anderson has never been used, let's scrap it

The problem is, when you try to get rid of it, (it's 50 some years old), the nuclear industry comes out in force to
stop you.

[SpoonFed]

9. Required to maintain some token amount someplace, maybe.

Plant owners are required to maintain decommissioning costs in a holding account.

Is there really enough money in the world to put in a bank to pay for the storage of spent filth fuel for 10,000 years? Common sense would suggest that somebody is lying on this one.

I'd like to see the bank book for this account, it must have a lot of 0s at the end of it.

Or is it an imaginary account like imaginary 12 billion of the P.A. Act that's being discussed? The money will magically exist when it's need and not earlier.

[Wilms]

3. Fix? You mean break.

Imagine the cost of alone insuring waste disposal maintenance of Np-237 through the year 2,002,011.

:rofl:

[kristopher]

7. It boggles the mind...

Boggles it I tell you!

[diane in sf]

8. Euthenasia is a kind way to fix the fission industry.