The cost of nuclear power is critically dependent on three factors: 1) Overnight Capital Cost or CAPEX 2) Build Time 3) Cost of Capital The GKN has expounded at length on nuclear's overnight cost: why it should be less than $2000/kW and why in the west it is five to ten times that number. We have spent \
"This can be tolerable to the banks only if they know the borrower can push off his additional costs on to the rate payer. But in a deregulated market this is a show-stopper." and "You cannot have an omnipotent regulator, a deregulated market, and private financing of nuclear power" Question - What am I missing here? Where in the world (and I mean that literally) is there an deregulated market for nuclear power? I can't figure out what you're talking about.
Fantastic analysis. The pushback will be that these fits may be considered essential by regulators to enforce the existing rules on 'acceptable exposure to radioactivity'. Here is where it would help to point out that, based on widely accepted and uncontroversial data, existing regulations value a life lost to radioactivity at least 100 times more than a life lost to air pollution. I explain the calculation below.
Real world evidence shows that existing Generation I-III nuclear power plants are around 1000 times safer than coal and 100 times safer than gas or biofuels.
Regulators would need to prove that without these fits any newly built reactor would be at least 100 more likely to cause a nuclear accidents than EXISTING reactors.
The consensus view of the International Committee for Radiation Protection (IRCP) is that increased risk of mortality from radioactivity is 5.5% per 1000 milliSievert (mSv). The ‘safe’ level set by all international regulators for public exposure to radioactivity from nuclear reactors is 1 mSv/year. For nuclear waste it is 0.04 mSv/year above background. This exposure would increase mortality by 0.00022-0.0055% (at 0.04-1 mSv/year).
The level of PM2.5 particles recommended by the latest (2021) WHO air quality guidelines is 5-15 ug/m^3.
So the recommended level of PM2.5 air pollution would increase mortality over 120-3000 times more than the recommended level of radioactivity exposure (0.68% versus 0.0055%-0.00022%).
It follows that our regulations value a life lost to radioactivity AT LEAST 100 times more than a life lost to air pollution.
Jack, well done! You pinned down the contradiction in asking for private capital while at the same time exposing that capital to unlimited political risk. Since a bank is a fiduciary institution their officers could be arrested for making that decision.
"This can be tolerable to the banks only if they know the borrower can push off his additional costs on to the rate payer. But in a deregulated market this is a show-stopper." and "You cannot have an omnipotent regulator, a deregulated market, and private financing of nuclear power" Question - What am I missing here? Where in the world (and I mean that literally) is there an deregulated market for nuclear power? I can't figure out what you're talking about.
Fantastic analysis. The pushback will be that these fits may be considered essential by regulators to enforce the existing rules on 'acceptable exposure to radioactivity'. Here is where it would help to point out that, based on widely accepted and uncontroversial data, existing regulations value a life lost to radioactivity at least 100 times more than a life lost to air pollution. I explain the calculation below.
Real world evidence shows that existing Generation I-III nuclear power plants are around 1000 times safer than coal and 100 times safer than gas or biofuels.
Regulators would need to prove that without these fits any newly built reactor would be at least 100 more likely to cause a nuclear accidents than EXISTING reactors.
CALCULATION
[Also described in FT letter and comments here https://www.ft.com/content/e76cd8f6-f4bb-498f-bb22-8e692d1a6133]
The consensus view of the International Committee for Radiation Protection (IRCP) is that increased risk of mortality from radioactivity is 5.5% per 1000 milliSievert (mSv). The ‘safe’ level set by all international regulators for public exposure to radioactivity from nuclear reactors is 1 mSv/year. For nuclear waste it is 0.04 mSv/year above background. This exposure would increase mortality by 0.00022-0.0055% (at 0.04-1 mSv/year).
For comparison, the increased risk of mortality from exposure to the most dangerous air pollution (PM2.5 particles) is 0.68% per 10 ug/m^3. (see https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1817364).
The level of PM2.5 particles recommended by the latest (2021) WHO air quality guidelines is 5-15 ug/m^3.
So the recommended level of PM2.5 air pollution would increase mortality over 120-3000 times more than the recommended level of radioactivity exposure (0.68% versus 0.0055%-0.00022%).
It follows that our regulations value a life lost to radioactivity AT LEAST 100 times more than a life lost to air pollution.
Jack, well done! You pinned down the contradiction in asking for private capital while at the same time exposing that capital to unlimited political risk. Since a bank is a fiduciary institution their officers could be arrested for making that decision.