Nuclear Energy

I don't support nuclear energy. Nevertheless, I consider it important that I describe the issue fairly.

Nuclear energy has two undeniable advantages:

• Reliable base load, independent of weather conditions
• No carbon emissions

Nuclear energy is also a well-established technology, though not in Australia, and although it is not low-cost it also isn't prohibitively expensive, insurance issues aside. If it wasn't for its disadvantages, nuclear energy would be hard to match. But the disadvantages are very real:

• A history of lethal accidents which have left the land around the affected power stations uninhabitable.
• A history of leaks of radio-active substances.
• Radio-active waste some of which degrades very slowly.
• The possibility that nuclear fuel can fall into the hands of terrorists who might use it to make weapons.
• A general susceptibility to malevolent actors.

Coming back to the lethal accidents and in the interests of balance it needs to be said that nuclear technology has advanced over the years. Modern reactors have more passive safety, meaning that if certain support systems fail, the reactors will naturally shut down rather than melt down. The Fukushima nuclear power station which was overwhelmed by a Tsunami in 2011 leading to a catastrophic accident was based on a 1960s design with the first reactor starting commercial operation in 1971, according to the World Nuclear Association.

The Fukushima accident illustrates one more point: Nuclear power stations aren't necessarily made as safe as they can be with whatever technology is available at the time. One can argue that the Fukushima power station predates today's modern designs and that is obviously an excuse for it not to have been built to today's modern designs. But there is no excuse for it to have been sited such that it could be flooded by a Tsunami.

Insurance

Nuclear energy is not prohibitively expensive, if we disregard insurance. However, if the nuclear industry were required to be fully insured, then the cost to the industry of supplying electricity would probably be quite different. Here are a few quotes from the World Nuclear Organisation which promotes nuclear energy:

• Illustrating the attitude: "...it was realized that nuclear power makes a valuable contribution to meeting the world's energy demands and that in order for it to continue doing so, individual operator liability had to be curtailed and beyond a certain level, risk had to be socialized. The state needs to accept responsibility as insurer of last resort..."
• On insurance cover in the USA: "The first layer is where each nuclear operator is required to purchase US$ 450 million liability cover (from 2017) for each reactor which is provided by a private insurance pool, American Nuclear Insurers (ANI)." and "The second layer or secondary financial protection (SFP) program is jointly provided by all US reactor operators. It is funded through retrospective payments if required of up to $121 million per reactor per accident (plus up to 5% if required for legal costs) collected in annual instalments of $19 million (and adjusted with inflation)." That's $571M (US) total per reactor.
• On the cost of the Fukushima disaster: "In July 2015 the government approved Tepco's recovery plan, including compensation payments of JPY 7075 billion ($57.2 billion), enabling it to receive JPY 950 billion more than the JPY 6125 billion estimated in April, according to METI.In December 2013 the government raised the upper limit of its financial assistance to Tepco from JPY 5 trillion to JPY 9 trillion ($86 billion). Early in 2014 the government estimated it would take JPY11 trillion and 40 years to clean up the Fukushima site." That was for four affected reactors.

Disclaimer: I have cherry-picked the above quotes. The organisation naturally says favourable things about nuclear energy. It also makes an attempt to convince the reader (unsuccessfully in my case) that the cost of compensation for the Fukushima disaster unnecessarily blew out. Feel free to click on the links if you want more context.

One thing is clear: There is glaring difference between the insurance cover of nuclear power stations and the potential cost of an accident. I took the USA as an example. The situation is similar with other countries. If the private sector were willing to fully insure nuclear power at prices that nuclear power station operators can realistically pay, then I would take nuclear power more seriously.

Conclusion

On balance, I can't recommend nuclear energy, although I would prefer it over building more fossil fuel power stations.