I'd like to know how Martin Nicholson arrives at his costings. As far as I have been able to discover, not one nuclear generating company in the world today has to obtain full liability insurance at market rates. Governments have always provided some level of indemnity to foster the industry.
It is also highly questionable whether adequate funds have ever been set aside for decommissioning and waste disposal.
In the absence of such data, the economics of nuclear power are simply unknown.

Shalmaneser,

"The liability of nuclear power plants is limited by Price-Anderson Act."

Name an industry/business/household that holds unlimited insurance. Such a thing does not exist. Something always limits the insurance, for everything, all the time.

Now name an industry that has to pool resources into a common fund like the American nuclear industry, other than the American nuclear industry. That too does not exist.

Now name an industry that has never come close to maxing out the available insurance: that IS the American nuclear industry.

The supposed costing of Fukushima clean-up is based on a quite absurd standard, accurately described by Tasweigian as making it less radioactive than some suburbs, despite assessments from WHO making it clear that if there is any negative impact, it will be so small as to be beyond detection. Some discrete areas WILL warrant clean up. But presuming to scrape soil of the whole exclusion zone that is less radioactive than Cornwall is absurd.

Name an industry subject to that type of standard other than the nuclear industry. There is no such thing.

Furthermore, the article is based on projected costs and deployment of nuclear in Australia from 2013 onward. The comparison with Fukushima is moot unless you make adjustments for how a modern reactor would have tolerated that type of event. Australia will not be building early Gen II, 1970 reactors, any more than we are selling 1970s cars. A modern reactor built in Australia would be privately insured, live every other industrial facility.

Tighten the thumb screws on nuclear power if you wish. It just waves through fossil fuels that face none of these demands to account for their waste or the damage of their everyday operations.

Ben,

Name an industry that has the potential for absolute catastrophe and virtually unlimited insurance exposure that nuclear does.
It's not cars or shirts.
Renewables are the only rational and safe future.
There may be some future in Thorium but the technology eludes us at the moment.

21 comments by 3.40 pm shows how excited folk get about their favorite sources of heat and electricity. Everyone seems to have a fixed starting point from which they work themselves up into a frenzy whenever it is challenged. But maybe we should all stay calm and rational. Renewables too expensive or impractical? Well, let's invest in research to make them cheaper and feasible. Nuclear too expensive or dangerous? Well, let's invest in research to find the answers. Not that there are any guarantees. As I have said many times, R&D is risky and there is no certainty about reaching defined objectives. That doesn't mean that pre-judgements should put a stop to further improvements. We ought to be trying, even if that means, in some cases, only making clear exactly what the public are objecting to and what their expectations might be (e.g. see Ben Heard). That would certainly help set performance targets.

Despite the heat in some of these comments, there is only one really silly one, an ad hominem attack. Martin Nicholson producing 'puff on behalf of the nuclear industry' - what nuclear industry? There isn't one here.

Rhosty, most of what you say is reasonable but I must correct your statement that the smart use of CNG mainly produces water vapour.

CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O regardless of how you do it.

David

Rhrosty! Fair slap on the bum!!

<< If you and your ilk, would just stop with the fear-mongering and misinformation… >>

Up to that point, your post was very good.

Sheesh, you and I have commented on many of the same threads, and have only corresponded with each other on those threads a couple of times, because we have similar views on most things.

So it is of rather poor form, at the first sign of disagreement, to get insolent with someone with whom you have vast majority concurrency of opinion!

Now, if pebble reactors are everything that you crack them up to be, along with the much-improved treatment of waste that you mention, then I would be more than willing to modify my opposition to nuclear power.

But hey, Fukushima has rotted confidence in nuclear power, across the board. If this disaster could happen in Japan with its esteemed technological reputation, then you can understand the massive global wariness held by most people regarding what we get told by any proponents of nuclear power.

What you say needs some pretty thorough corroboration before I can accept it at face value.

I would love to be able to fully accept what you say and to support nuclear. In the absence of the major downsides – the chance of catastrophic mishap and the problems with waste, it would indeed be the way to go.

So if you can assist by directing me to a useful link or two, that would be much appreciated.