Tao,

It's true that there are companies that have put profit before the public interest, but the relevant issue here is not whether nuclear power generators would act in the public interest out of good will, but whether they would act in compliance with regulations. The fact that some companies have behaved badly from an ethical perspective tells us nothing about whether they would comply with express rules.

As regards governments taking over liability for decommissioning, I observed that this would be no doubt be in exchange for a levy on the power generated. That this represents a transfer of risk would be reflected in the levy. In that respect it's no different from insurance. The use of a levy is already the practice in at least some of the countries that use nuclear power. Indeed, having a separate fund to cover decommissioning expenses, rather than leaving the cost on the books of the generators, is desirable, because it ensures that the money is there to pay for the decommissioning even if the generator goes into liquidation.

The costs of decommissioning are only somewhat uncertain, not hugely so, since some decommissioning of nuclear power plants has already occurred. Costs seems to be around $US300 per kilowatt of installed capacity, the notable exception being for gas cooled reactors which are for some reason significantly more expensive.

It is true that if a nuclear power station were to explode, it would do a huge amount of damage. However, with the newer designs it is believed that an explosion is impossible - the laws of physics prevent it. At most, the risk must be very small, and this risk has to be taken into account when trying to include the costs of an explosion.

DCF describes how to bring together costs and incomes that occur at different times. I have never suggested that it claims to "calculate to the very last cent the “real” value." You have misrepresented my position, and sought attack it on the basis of the misrepresentation. That is a classical strawman argument, and is intellectually dishonest.

The issue of the altruism or morality of listed companies miss
the point , such entities are dedicated to the making of profits in a
legal manner and are neither better or worst than the people who run
them
It's like blaming the motorcar for road accidents !
All large companies , such as power generators consider their public
profile and reputation as an asset ,
especialy in a public retail situation ,

To claim than large corporations are set on an course of reckless
exploitation of the public is simplistic in the extreme
The power generators operate a technical process in a legislated
environment ,
the green movement has been incapable of adressing the debate
on a technical point of view , further a galaxy of extrem left wing
groups have been using nuclear power as agit-prop material , stiring
trouble for recruitment and exposure ,
their strategy has been to resort to hysterical claims
on safety , strong arm tactics and generaly infiltration of any
platform with a megaphone .
the discution on the cost of waste is a non issue , no amount of
safety will satisfy someone who is of bad faith !
when the cost of energy will be such as to affect the lifestyle
of the urban " Pink neck " then all problems will disappears ,like
a labor policy mist in the sun of an election .

Sylvia,

I have not sought to attack your argument on the basis of misrepresentation, my understanding of your promotion of DCF is that it is the only true way to assess the costs, savings and value of things. My comment about “down to the very last cent” was perhaps a humorous exaggeration of it’s precision (which you obviously don’t find very funny :) ). However, any method of calculating such things (particularly if we are going to make important decisions on the basis of it) should have a certain degree of precision which, I presume, a “largish and somewhat uncertain liability” that is not acceptable to private companies, would throw into fuzzy land. You have not yet demonstrated that it does not. However you appear (conveniently) to have revised your estimate from “largish and somewhat uncertain” to “only somewhat uncertain, not hugely so”. Very precise.

The payment of a levy merely transfers the “largish and somewhat uncertain” risk to the public for a set cost and is therefore an advantage to the private company, but a disadvantage to the public. There may be a relative advantage in ensuring that there is money available for the cleanup, however a better outcome for the public would be that the company which makes all of the profit from the venture bears full responsibility for the potential liabilities if and when they occur. The question that arises is, why should a company be able to make the profit and not take full responsibility for the consequences? Or, why should the public take responsibility for the consequences, but not derive the full benefit of the venture (i.e. the “profit” staying in public hands, or benefit from reduced power costs?) Interestingly, Wall Street is extremely reluctant to invest in, or insure, nuclear power plants because the economic risk is too great, hence the push for the public to bear the responsibility.

You say: “It's true that there are companies that have put profit before the public interest, but the relevant issue here is not whether nuclear power generators would act in the public interest out of good will, but whether they would act in compliance with regulations. The fact that some companies have behaved badly from an ethical perspective tells us nothing about whether they would comply with express rules.”

Your previous words were: “There is no reason to think that the profit motive would cause nuclear power generation companies to skimp on security if the rules require that that security be in place.’ This is appears to be a statement of fact.

I however, suggested that there are reasons to be concerned that the profit motive would cause nuclear power generation companies to skimp on things (security or otherwise) regardless of what “rules” are in place, and would in fact influence the “rules” that were made.

The transgressions committed by the companies/industries listed include wilfully disregarding laws and regulations, as well as moral or ethical transgressions. There is no end of examples of companies who disregard environmental and other laws for the sake of their bottom line. There is little reason to believe that nuclear power companies will be any different and, I would suggest, such belief is wishful, naïve thinking.

Then there is the added aspect of what such companies do with knowledge they have that hasn’t made its way into legislation. Big Tobacco for example knew the dangers of smoking long before any rules or regulations were made, yet they hid that knowledge in the interests of profit. So, contrary to your assertions, compliance with regulations is not the only relevant issue.

I also suggested that those laws and regulations that will be made may in fact be influenced by those with vested interests. For example, the former Australian Chief Scientist, Robin Batterham, whose role was to advise the government, and therefore influenced policy, was also working for Rio Tinto, and doing his “consulting” for the government from Rio Tinto’s offices, and using their data. Hardly impartial.

So while you categorically state that THERE IS NO REASON to believe that the profit motive would lead to skimping as long as there are rules in place, I submit that your categorical statement is untrue. Further, even if it were true, the fact of legislation or regulation does not satisfactorily eliminate the potential risks.

Indeed, for those who think critically, and in broader terms than the economic bottom line, there is little reason to take your word for it that there are no such risks.

Given that you appear to dismiss such risks, one could assume that they have not been costed (if in fact they can be at all), nor included in DCF. Nor will any government body include them in their calculations.

The other point that your comments highlight, is that there is a conflict between the public interest and private profit making which requires laws, regulation, and penalties for non compliance. The question that arises is that if private profit is so good for society as a whole, why would we need laws to protect the public interest?

No doubt you will consider some of my points “off-topic”, however in my opinion, while DCF may be a correct method of calculation, for as long as there is a profit system, the real value of anything which is supposedly in the public interest will be obscured by the competing agenda of private profit. There is the necessary “cost” of producing any kind of energy which is the basic requirements of natural resources, technology and labour, and potential risks. On top of that there are unnecessary costs which are the requirement of certain people to derive a profit and all of the motives and consequences which flow from that.

If the aim is to make the best decisions for humanity as a whole, then any calculation must take all factors into account and make rational decisions on that basis. We can’t know the true costs of any form of energy production until we separate the necessary from the unnecessary.