Comments on: Three Mile Island, 30 years on http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2009/03/31/three-mile-island-30-years-on/ Nourishing the environmental debate Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:36:18 +1100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Michael James http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2009/03/31/three-mile-island-30-years-on/#comment-521 Michael James Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:29:15 +0000 http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/?p=1105#comment-521 (Better late than never? I sent this to Crikey but to this website 2 April.) In his excellent overview Michael Grunwald describes its role in crippling nuclear power in the US. In my recent Crikey piece [http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20090305-Costellos-foolish-flirtation-with-nuclear-power.html#comments] I reported how it is simple economics that will prevent the much-heralded renaissance of nuclear power and not safety fears or other contentious issues. Grunwald provides hard data on why this has actually become much worse, not better as some have fondly imagined. I urge readers to examine the full articles but one or two things stand out. Despite up to 45 new applications for nuclear power plants in the US no hard investment decisions have been taken on a single new reactor (and remember that the last US reactor opened in 1996 after 25 years of enquiries, finance and construction delays outdoing even the Brits whose last reactor took a mere 14 years). Of course nuclear power has never stood on its own economic legs and relies upon endless subsidies, tax concessions and government guarantees not to mention government liability insurance including for the unsolved long-term waste handling (or as in France and China, the whole show is government financed and operated). Grunwald reports: “It turns out that new plants would be not just extremely expensive but spectacularly expensive. The first detailed cost estimate, filed by Florida Power & Light (FPL) came in at a shocking $12 billion to $18 billion.” He cites Amory Lovins calculations that “new nuclear wattage would cost more than twice as much as coal or gas and nearly three times as much as wind”. This is a little clue as to why no private interests (stock market, private companies etc) are seriously putting up the money for such plants. None of this is disputed by the actual industry. If advocates of Australian nuclear power, such as Peter Costello and Ziggy Switkowski are serious they need to demonstrate how Australia would magically avoid this economic lead balloon, and not just the ideological arm-waving they have given us to date. (Better late than never? I sent this to Crikey but to this website 2 April.)
In his excellent overview Michael Grunwald describes its role in crippling nuclear power in the US. In my recent Crikey piece [http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20090305-Costellos-foolish-flirtation-with-nuclear-power.html#comments] I reported how it is simple economics that will prevent the much-heralded renaissance of nuclear power and not safety fears or other contentious issues. Grunwald provides hard data on why this has actually become much worse, not better as some have fondly imagined. I urge readers to examine the full articles but one or two things stand out. Despite up to 45 new applications for nuclear power plants in the US no hard investment decisions have been taken on a single new reactor (and remember that the last US reactor opened in 1996 after 25 years of enquiries, finance and construction delays outdoing even the Brits whose last reactor took a mere 14 years). Of course nuclear power has never stood on its own economic legs and relies upon endless subsidies, tax concessions and government guarantees not to mention government liability insurance including for the unsolved long-term waste handling (or as in France and China, the whole show is government financed and operated). Grunwald reports: “It turns out that new plants would be not just extremely expensive but spectacularly expensive. The first detailed cost estimate, filed by Florida Power & Light (FPL) came in at a shocking $12 billion to $18 billion.” He cites Amory Lovins calculations that “new nuclear wattage would cost more than twice as much as coal or gas and nearly three times as much as wind”. This is a little clue as to why no private interests (stock market, private companies etc) are seriously putting up the money for such plants. None of this is disputed by the actual industry. If advocates of Australian nuclear power, such as Peter Costello and Ziggy Switkowski are serious they need to demonstrate how Australia would magically avoid this economic lead balloon, and not just the ideological arm-waving they have given us to date.

]]> By: Roger Clifton http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2009/03/31/three-mile-island-30-years-on/#comment-431 Roger Clifton Thu, 02 Apr 2009 03:27:44 +0000 http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/?p=1105#comment-431 What do you mean, "disaster"? No one was killed at Three Mile Island! Perhaps you meant that the hysteria in the media was a disaster for media ethics? Or that the subsequent overreaction by the regulators was a disaster for the development of later reactors? Or that the setback to weaning us from coal was a disaster for the greenhouse? The commotion did provide a jackpot success for the disaster movie, "China Syndrome" which was showing at the time, a thriller which pumped horror into a credulous public. What do you mean, “disaster”?
No one was killed at Three Mile Island!

Perhaps you meant that the hysteria in the media
was a disaster for media ethics?

Or that the subsequent overreaction by the regulators
was a disaster for the development of later reactors?

Or that the setback to weaning us from coal
was a disaster for the greenhouse?

The commotion did provide a jackpot success for the disaster movie,
“China Syndrome” which was showing at the time,
a thriller which pumped horror into a credulous public.

]]>