Nuclear power cost blowout

Dr Jim Green of Friends of the Earth writes: Re. “The benefits of nuclear power” (yesterday). Jon Stanford indulges in wishful thinking in relation to the economics of nuclear power. The problem is that the true costs invariably exceed estimates, usually by a wide margin. Here’s one method of estimating nuclear capital costs: double industry estimates and add a couple of billion for good measure. That formula works for reactors under construction in Finland and France. Since the contract was signed in 2003 for a new European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) in Finland, the estimated cost ballooned from 3 billion euros to 8 billion  euros (A$10 billion). Peter Atherton, utilities analyst at Citigroup, said: “There are few companies in the world that can take a loss of that size and remain solvent.” The original estimated cost of EDF’s Flamanville 3 EPR reactor in France was 3.3 billion euros, and the latest estimate is 8.5 billion euros.

Moreover, nuclear power is the one energy technology subject to a “negative learning curve” — it is becoming more expensive over time. Reasons include technological complexity and the need for stringent safety requirements. In contrast, the cost of solar PV has plummeted over the past decade. In March 2012, Exelon CEO John Rowe said nuclear power “won’t become economically viable for the foreseeable future”. General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt said in July 2012 it’s “hard to justify nuclear, really hard”.

Other costs are also spiralling. The UK National Audit Office estimates the total future costs for decommissioning the (dual civil-military) Sellafield nuclear site in Cumbria will be 67 billion pounds — well up from the 2009 estimate of 47 billion pounds. Estimates of the clean up costs for a range of (civil and military) UK nuclear sites including Sellafield have jumped from a 2005 estimate of 56 billion pounds to over 100 billion pounds.

The beatification of John Howard

James Burke writes: Re. “Essential: voters on Iraq, gay marriage and Gonski” (yesterday)  The poll results on Iraq are illuminating of our brave new Australia. Only 51% of Australians think our joining the Iraq invasion was a mistake? No doubt that figure will drop still further, once John Howard has been reinstated as the national paterfamilias, showering his tough love upon us from Yarralumla.

I don’t know what Tony Abbott is so het up about. Given the Labor government’s form, they seem just as likely to erect Howard to the G-G spot as is Abbott himself. They have never tried to hold Howard to account for Iraq, or anything else. If they had, the polls might have told a different story.

In the US, George W. Bush is an embarrassment. In the UK, Tony Blair attracts derision and contempt – Maggie won’t be the last PM to attract obituary protests – though the wanton economic incompetence of David Cameron and George Osborne has probably made the heart grow fonder. John Howard has been re-envisioned through the liberal application of Vaseline and gauze as a great and wise grandfather figure.

Better get used to it, I suppose. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia …

How depressingly apt to hear that Chrissy Amphlett has died. She was pretty much the opposite of John Howard on all counts except geographical origin. A genuine Australian heroine. Get me out of here!

Air(port) rights

Jim Hart writes: Re. “The benefits of nuclear power” (yesterday). As Michael James has pointed out, it’s not inconsistent for the airport to be named Ayers Rock while the nearby monolith is called Uluru.

However, if the airport did ever change its name it would almost certainly retain its AYQ international code, just as Chicago’s airport is still ORD from the days when it was Orchard Field. And though you may fly to Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai, the pilot and hopefully your luggage will go to BOM.