To test Nuclear power’s real efficacy it needs to be truly exposed to the market, so we can see how it really stand up.
The creation of corporations and limited-liability companies allow investors to invest in high-risk industries like nuclear power while protecting themselves from the risk they create. Their risk is limited to what they invest; but if they were personally held fully responsible for the damage may they do they would not take that risk.
Investors in many risky industries hide behind corporations and limited-liability, but nuclear is egregious in this because it encompasses such high-consequence risks.
Fukushima shareholders were happy to take the profits, but the Japanese taxpayers are paying the real costs for them and will be for years up to a likely total of a trillion US dollars. Take that protection away and see who is still game to invest in nuclear power.
Complete with supporting links, it outlines the 'Mega Project' problem and why both large and small nuclear generation can't be commercially viable.
By far the most important point of the post and its linked articles is how behavioural biases influence the approval of mega projects. The list of 10 primary biases includes nearly every argument put in favour of nuclear power.
Your article neatly homes in on the economic issues, Professor John. There is also the carbon emissions argument. Virtually every media statement suggesting that we should reopen discussion about nuclear power makes the assertion that it produces virtually zero emissions. This is nonsense. Large volumes of diesel fuel are required to mine the ore and large quantities of diesel or electricity to process it. Then there is the cement, copper, steel and other resources embedded in the construction. The statistics over the net energy gain in the literature are ambiguous and contested, and would be worthy of your forensic examination.
To test Nuclear power’s real efficacy it needs to be truly exposed to the market, so we can see how it really stand up.
The creation of corporations and limited-liability companies allow investors to invest in high-risk industries like nuclear power while protecting themselves from the risk they create. Their risk is limited to what they invest; but if they were personally held fully responsible for the damage may they do they would not take that risk.
Investors in many risky industries hide behind corporations and limited-liability, but nuclear is egregious in this because it encompasses such high-consequence risks.
Fukushima shareholders were happy to take the profits, but the Japanese taxpayers are paying the real costs for them and will be for years up to a likely total of a trillion US dollars. Take that protection away and see who is still game to invest in nuclear power.
I just found this Quora post giving the clearest arguments against nuclear power I have come across:
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-it-take-so-long-to-build-a-nuclear-plant/answer/Michael-Barnard-14
Complete with supporting links, it outlines the 'Mega Project' problem and why both large and small nuclear generation can't be commercially viable.
By far the most important point of the post and its linked articles is how behavioural biases influence the approval of mega projects. The list of 10 primary biases includes nearly every argument put in favour of nuclear power.
Excellent Summary Prof Quiggin.
Your article neatly homes in on the economic issues, Professor John. There is also the carbon emissions argument. Virtually every media statement suggesting that we should reopen discussion about nuclear power makes the assertion that it produces virtually zero emissions. This is nonsense. Large volumes of diesel fuel are required to mine the ore and large quantities of diesel or electricity to process it. Then there is the cement, copper, steel and other resources embedded in the construction. The statistics over the net energy gain in the literature are ambiguous and contested, and would be worthy of your forensic examination.