Can market forces evaluate nuclear power's risk & econom

[patslatt]

Bookmakers are good at forecasting everything from horse races to elections. As was pointed out to me by a punter 50 years ago, the bookie doesn't need a crystal ball,he can simply monitor the flow of the money and change the odds accordingly, or lay off bets with other bookies to "balance the books". This balancing usually leaves him with a marketmaker's spread of profit on the conflicting bets.

The same principle applies in financial futures markets. Very complex issues are judged in those markets,such as the future trends in interest rates,currencies and commodities. The forecasts at any given time represent the consensus of the market players' judgements. One group of players is particularly important-those whose trading activity dominates the price movements in a recent time period, which could be measured in days,weeks or months. Those traders are usually the best informed,simply because they are speculating the largest sums.

Turning to nuclear power's risk and economics, governments shouldn't arbitrarily decide if nuclear power
is good or bad but let the marketplace assume the risks. They should invite large,well financed private consortia,not unaccountable state monopolies, to bid on nuclear power plant construction and operation. A condition of operation should require full insurance against potential environmental damage, costs of remediation and assumption of all
costs for waste disposal and safe monitoring of it in perpetuity. Let the insurance actuaries figure out the costs of the insurance.

If there are no takers, then governments would have to offer subsidies to the extent that reducing carbon emissions are worth it. If there are still no takers, then governments should forget about nuclear power until another
generation of more efficient nuclear power plants comes along.

[SPN]

There is already an active thread on the topic of a Nuke which, among other things, shows why we don't NEED a Nuke (because we have lots of cheaper alternatives) and how the argument for a Nuke is just another ploy by hard left whackjobs, such as Brendan D'ilda, to get the taxpayer to fund an uneconomic, but highly unionised, gravy train.

[joel]

There is already an active thread on the topic of a Nuke which, among other things, shows why we don't NEED a Nuke (because we have lots of cheaper alternatives) and how the argument for a Nuke is just another ploy by hard left whackjobs, such as Brendan D'ilda, to get the taxpayer to fund an uneconomic, but highly unionised, gravy train.

That might be so, but I bet pressure is also coming from the right wing. Firstly, to tie Ireland into the nuclear club, so that they stop complaining about Sellafield, etc. - and, secondly, to give business to the Nuclear lobby.

[patslatt]

There is already an active thread on the topic of a Nuke which, among other things, shows why we don't NEED a Nuke (because we have lots of cheaper alternatives) and how the argument for a Nuke is just another ploy by hard left whackjobs, such as Brendan D'ilda, to get the taxpayer to fund an uneconomic, but highly unionised, gravy train.

That might be so, but I bet pressure is also coming from the right wing. Firstly, to tie Ireland into the nuclear club, so that they stop complaining about Sellafield, etc. - and, secondly, to give business to the Nuclear lobby.

This thread focuses on the question of whether market forces can evaluate the risks and economics of nuclear power.

There should be grave reservations about the ESB or ESB union's potential involvement in nuclear power plants. The plants require highly efficient work procedures to guarantee safety,which on the union's present form would be ruthlessly exploited in collective bargaining. In the case of one gas fired power plant in Dublin that pays €135,000 a year (not a misprint!) to plant operatives, a top manager of ESB told me that there is constant bickering about work rules and overtime despite the high pay. In a nightmare scenario,if such union operatives were in a nuclear plant in a work to rule campaign,they would threaten to refuse to pull the switch to prevent a Chernobl situation!!

Government power monopolies cannot be trusted to make rational market decisions on nuclear power. For example,ESB may view nuclear power as a means of preserving its totally dominant market position.Its managers who have lifetime employment contracts would not suffer dismissal if nuclear plants they installed turned out to be ruinously uneconomic.

If the private sector nuclear lobby believes nuclear power is economic and safe,let it put its money where its mouth is and bid for the construction and operation of nuclear plants,giving the fully insured guarantees mentioned in the opening thread above. Since this is private sector money,the companies involved would carefully evaluate the risks to the bottom line profits.

[david]

If the private sector nuclear lobby believes nuclear power is economic and safe,let it put its money where its mouth is and bid for the construction and operation of nuclear plants,giving the fully insured guarantees mentioned in the opening thread above. Since this is private sector money,the companies involved would carefully evaluate the risks to the bottom line profits.

If no-one is building nuclear despite having billions in free money offered initially and ongoing - both the British and the American governments subsidise the owners and then insure the owners above a certain level - what do you think is the answer to your question?

[ivnryn]

There is a counter arguement to this. Who decides what is fair for

" full insurance against potential environmental damage, costs of remediation and assumption of all
costs for waste disposal and safe monitoring of it in perpetuity."

The main one there is enviromental damage. How do we come up with a price for that ? If there was a leak, I could see the payout being considerably larger than the actual cost of the damage.

It is all well and good to say, let the market decide, but the legal system also has involvement. You end up not asking the companies to estimate the cost of the damage, but to estimate the cost the legal system will say the damage caused. (and also the potentially hysterical reaction to even a minor leak)

Also, other forms of power generation don't have this requirement. Coal burning plants put more radioactive material into the air than nuclear plants do, due to the uranium content of coal. Are they costed for that damage ?

For this to really work, there would need to be a clearly defined table of how much the company has to pay for each type of accident. However, even in that case, some tables would result in viability and some would result in non-viability.

This is seen in car insurance, we pay alot because courts payout alot.

[joel]

There is a counter arguement to this. Who decides what is fair for

" full insurance against potential environmental damage, costs of remediation and assumption of all
costs for waste disposal and safe monitoring of it in perpetuity."

The main one there is enviromental damage. How do we come up with a price for that ? If there was a leak, I could see the payout being considerably larger than the actual cost of the damage.

It is all well and good to say, let the market decide, but the legal system also has involvement. You end up not asking the companies to estimate the cost of the damage, but to estimate the cost the legal system will say the damage caused. (and also the potentially hysterical reaction to even a minor leak)

Also, other forms of power generation don't have this requirement. Coal burning plants put more radioactive material into the air than nuclear plants do, due to the uranium content of coal. Are they costed for that damage ?

For this to really work, there would need to be a clearly defined table of how much the company has to pay for each type of accident. However, even in that case, some tables would result in viability and some would result in non-viability.

This is seen in car insurance, we pay alot because courts payout alot.

All right, what are they going to do with the waste - put it in landfill? Or an incinerator?

[patslatt]

If the private sector nuclear lobby believes nuclear power is economic and safe,let it put its money where its mouth is and bid for the construction and operation of nuclear plants,giving the fully insured guarantees mentioned in the opening thread above. Since this is private sector money,the companies involved would carefully evaluate the risks to the bottom line profits.

If no-one is building nuclear despite having billions in free money offered initially and ongoing - both the British and the American governments subsidise the owners and then insure the owners above a certain level - what do you think is the answer to your question?

The British have offered no subsidy,acccording to recent reports in The Times

[patslatt]

i

[joel]

There is a counter arguement to this. Who decides what is fair for

" full insurance against potential environmental damage, costs of remediation and assumption of all
costs for waste disposal and safe monitoring of it in perpetuity."

The main one there is enviromental damage. How do we come up with a price for that ? If there was a leak, I could see the payout being considerably larger than the actual cost of the damage.

It is all well and good to say, let the market decide, but the legal system also has involvement. You end up not asking the companies to estimate the cost of the damage, but to estimate the cost the legal system will say the damage caused. (and also the potentially hysterical reaction to even a minor leak)

Also, other forms of power generation don't have this requirement. Coal burning plants put more radioactive material into the air than nuclear plants do, due to the uranium content of coal. Are they costed for that damage ?

For this to really work, there would need to be a clearly defined table of how much the company has to pay for each type of accident. However, even in that case, some tables would result in viability and some would result in non-viability.

This is seen in car insurance, we pay alot because courts payout alot.

All right, what are they going to do with the waste - put it in landfill? Or an incinerator?

The companies interested in bidding on plants and the insurance companies would naturally consult their legal advisers on the litigation risks from potential accidents and environmental damage. If the litigation risks are unknown and are considered a loose cannon (or loose missile today,multiple warhead type!), then it is up to governments to clarify the situation,possibly setting up an independent commission to estimate penalties on each type of damage using scientific expertise.

You have avoided the question - what will become of the nuclear waste? - where will it go and who will be responsible for it?