*/Thanks, Ray, for the N.Y. Times article by Dr. Helen Caldicott ./ /
Two pieces here. The first, from Canada, busts the nuclear power
industry myth about being the most viable clean energy solution. The
second, written by a US lawyer, discusses liability caps of the industry
resulting from the Price-Anderson Act of 1957.
/
*/Natalia/*/./
We tried the nuclear power experiment - and it didn't work*
by Joshua Pearce
/The Whig Standard, Kingston, Ontario, March 24, 2011/
Every nation with nuclear power is currently in a frenzy to determine if
they are at risk of ending up in a situation like the one plaguing
Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant.
What is happening now in Japan simply lets the public in on a secret
that has been well known in both the energy and insurance industries for
decades: No nuclear power plant would exist without a government-backed
insurance liability subsidy.
Nuclear energy is simply not insurable in the free market. Period.
Thus, the nuclear industry is completely dependent on an artificial cap
on insurance liability, which reduces the costs of nuclear energy to
something affordable rather than its real cost. In the U.S. this cap is
about $10 billion.
If the nuclear disaster amounts to something like $310 billion, as the
U.S. Sandia National Lab. estimated in the 1980s for a major screw-up,
then the public ends up picking up the tab on $300 billion. In Canada
this cap is orders of magnitude lower, exposing the public to an even
greater potential financial risk.
These liability caps represent an indirect subsidy because no money
actually flows from government coffers unless a disaster occurs. In
general these indirect subsidies have been ignored because they are hard
to calculate. Understandably it can be difficult to estimate the full
effects of a nuclear accident given the difficulty of placing value on
human lives, health, a contaminated environment and loss of productivity.
For example, what happens to the property values within 20 km of
Fukushima? Or what is the cost if there is a meltdown like Chernobyl
where the national sacrificial zone amounted to the area of Kentucky?
On the other hand, it is exactly for these reasons that such
calculations must be attempted and more research on potential damages be
developed with risks included in assessing nuclear energy viability. And
if the nuclear industry is to be placed in competition with alternative
sources of energy, then it is essential to understand the full weight
and cost of its operational risks.
There are other options. Currently, nuclear power and solar energy are
competing for policy support in Ontario, which governs their economic
viability.
Queen's University recently completed a study (in press in the
peer-reviewed journal Energy Policy), in which the effects of indirect
subsidies in the nuclear and solar technologies are compared.
The potential power, energy and financial returns were calculated for
the indirect subsidy that is currently provided to the U.S. nuclear
industry in the form of liability caps, with providing the same level of
indirect subsidy to the solar photovoltaic manufacturing industry in the
form of loan guarantees. The startling results show even if just this
one relatively minor subsidy was diverted from nuclear power generation
into large-scale solar manufacturing, it would result in both more
installed power and more energy produced by mid-century. Such a policy
would increase the cumulative solar industry over the 500 TWhours mark
in just 10 years and by the end of the study the cumulative electricity
output of solar amounts to an additional 48,600 TW-hours worth more than
$5 trillion over the nuclear case.
Nuclear power plants do not produce enough electricity to justify the
public subsidizing the risks. Japan is one of the most technologically
advanced societies, with some of the best scientists and engineers in
the world --- their safeguards are top of the line. Yet, an extremely
unlikely one-two punch of an earthquake and tsunami have them on the ropes.
Nuclear experts of every flavour are flocking to the media to assure us
such a thing could never happen in Canada. Can we handle a one-two punch
(e. g., can we prevent a major radioactive release if our plants are hit
with say a tornado then a terrorist attack?) The nuclear experts, of
course, have no idea. The people that do know work for insurance companies.
If any insurance company is willing to shoulder the unsubsidized full
liability of our nuclear fleet then that is the first sign nuclear is a
viable option. This would significantly increase the costs of nuclear
energy because the insurance premiums would skyrocket, particularly
given what is happening in Japan, and make it extremely unlikely that
nuclear could ever compete on the free market.
Nuclear power is simply not worth risk. We tried the nuclear experiment
--- it did not work. It is time we cut our losses and started putting
all of our financial resources into a portfolio of renewable energy
technologies.
/Joshua Pearce is an assistant professor in the Faculty of Applied
Science, Mechanical and Materials Engineering at Queen's University./
U.S. Nuclear Industry Protected from Liability in Event of a Nuclear
Catastrophe
Posted by Paul Napoli <http://www.injuryboard.com/Paul-Napoli/>March 26,
2011 11:17 PM, March 26, 2011
Most Americans would be shocked to find that in the event of a major
nuclear accident at a U.S. nuclear power plant, even in a large
catastrophe like Chernobyl in Ukraine
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster>, the plant owner is
only liable for a tiny fraction of damages that could occur.
The Price-Anderson Act of 1957
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act>
was to encourage commercial development of nuclear power by placing a
cap on the amount of liability for each nuclear plant licensee in the
event of a nuclear accident. Each licensee is required to pay into an
insurance pool, currently at about 12.6 billion, which is to ensure
adequate funds to satisfy liability claims of the public for personal
injury and property damage in the event of an accident at one of the plants.
"Under existing policy, owners of nuclear power plants pay a premium
each year for $375 million in private insurance for offsite liability
coverage for each reactor unit," says the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) website
<http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/funds-fs.html>.
"This primary, or first tier, insurance is supplemented by a second
tier. In the event a nuclear accident causes damages in excess of $375
million, each licensee would be assessed a prorated share of the excess
up to $111.9 million. With 104 reactors currently licensed to operate,
this secondary tier of funds contains about $12.6 billion."
When you consider that nuclear power plants are located near some of
this country's largest cities, including New York City, Philadelphia,
Washington D.C., Chicago and Miami, how much would it cost in personal
injury and property damage if a major nuclear accident occurred?
According to an article by CNN Money, a 1982 study for the NRC found
that a nuclear meltdown could potentially cause 50,000 fatalities and
$314 billion (equaling $720 billion today) in property damage.
AOL News reports
<http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/18/would-fund-protect-us-taxpayers-from-nuke-disaster-here/>
that a 2009 study by professors at the Risk Management and Decision
Processes Center at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School
called "Environment & Energy: Catastrophic Liabilities
<http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/library/WP20090331_GH,HK_EnvLiabilities.pdf>"
hypothesized what would happen if a meltdown occurred at Indian Point
Energy Center in Westchester County, NY. The study concluded that 64,000
people would eventually die resulting from the incident. They estimated
that claims from surviving families would be about $384 billion and that
economic losses would be between $50 billion and $100 billion.
25 years since the disaster
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/27/chernobyl-disaster-anniversary-japan>
at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in what is now Ukraine, cities and
villages contaminated with radiation within a 60-mile radius of the
plant remain ghost towns, residency and business prohibited due to
radiation levels that will linger for hundreds of years. Many people
evacuated immediately after the accident, told they would be back home
in just a few days, have never been allowed to return.
If a nuclear disaster should occur at a U.S. nuclear power plant and the
12.6 billion insurance fund is insufficient to cover the claims of
bodily injury, sickness, disease or resulting death, property damage and
loss as well as reasonable living expenses for individuals evacuated,
the government and taxpayers would likely be left to pay the rest.
All property and liability insurance policies issued in the U.S. exclude
nuclear accidents.
Since the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident> in 1979, the
insurance fund established by the Price-Anderson Act has paid out $71
million in claims and litigation costs associated with the accident.
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
