Did you read this article I sent out last month? Government subsidies
channeled into sustainable industries rather than high-risk, life
threatening ones? Even if the math isn't quite there, at least there's
still a planet to live on, potable water, and fewer three-eyed fish.
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./
On 5/21/2011 7:01 AM, Keith Hudson wrote:
At 13:56 21/05/2011, Arthur wrote:
*Subject:* Inconvenient Truths About 'Renewable' Energy - The Wall
Street Journal.
I thought you would be interested in the following story from The
Wall Street Journal.
*Inconvenient Truths About 'Renewable' Energy
*
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703421204576327410322365714.html
Yes, this is a pretty accurate summary of the 'renewables. What the
article should also have said that the techno-renewables -- wind,
solar, nuclear power -- are uneconomic and all require government
subsidies. And this, long before their long-term maintenance costs
(and de-commissioning costs in the case of nuclear) are known.
Keith
_______________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2011/05/
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
