The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Why Australia won’t get nuclear power

Peak Energy: Crikey’s Bernard Keane has the next installment of his series on why nuclear power is unlikely to be seen in Australia – 20 Nov 09
To those who say “beaudy nuke”: why should taxpayers suffer? What would it cost Australia to go nuclear? Good question. Excellent question, in fact, because no one really knows.
Estimating the cost of building a nuclear power plant is difficult even in countries with established nuclear industries. For a start, not too many have been built in recent years. Further, very few  — in fact, not really any  — have been built in an open, competitive, private power-supply market where the plant would face competition from alternative electricity sources.

Governments indirectly or indirectly play a huge role in offsetting costs, transferring risk from company balance sheets into governments programs, tax offsets and implicit guarantees. Worst of all, the construction of nuclear power plants is notoriously prone to cost overruns. It wasn’t Three Mile Island and Chernobyl that smashed the US power industry in the 1980s  — it was the fact that from the 1960s to the end of the 1970s the final construction cost of US nuclear plants was on average twice to four times the original cost.

Regularly blowing out your costs by 400% is not a way to engender investor and government confidence. Currently we’re seeing the same thing in Finland and France, where costs for new nuclear plants (initially €3.3 billion, or $A5.3 billion) are currently 50-70% over budget, years out from completion. Overruns and delays are toxic to the balance sheets of nuclear plant builders and their customers because of the cost of capital, already high due to the extended construction period. That’s why so many nuclear power advocates say low-interest government loans are necessary to make building new reactors financially viable  — they want taxpayers, rather than capital markets, to provide their capital. .

.. Wind and solar power have the advantage of much shorter construction times, and no decommissioning costs. Neither requires taxpayers to take on risk  — either through lending capital to nuclear reactor builders for the decade-plus construction and 200% budget blow-out history shows they require, or through requiring high electricity prices for consumers to guarantee a return on capital, or through the acceptance of safety and storage risks by the taxpayer into infinity, or at least the next 200,000 years………..

next time a nuclear proponent tells us we should be “having a debate” about nuclear power, ask them a simple question: why should taxpayers fund the most expensive and slowest energy option when so many alternatives are significantly cheaper and pose less financial risk?

Peak Energy: To those who say “beaudy nuke”: why should taxpayers suffer?

November 20, 2009 - Posted by | 1, business and costs | , , , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: