I've just been on the phone to Dave Toke (senior lecturer in
environmental policy at the University of Birmingham) and he advised us
not to get involved in a public argument on discount rates, but just to
concentrate on the message that we are going to have to pay for nuclear
power, either through increased taxation if the government subsidises
them (though that looks unlikely) or through increased electricity
bills, because if nuclear power stations were economic they would have
been built already.
We could also use this unfavourable evaluation from the credit ratings
agency Standard and Poors
" Nuclear power plants appear to be a less attractive proposition for
investment due to
the long lead-times for building of up to 10 years, compared with less
than three years
for a CCGT. In addition, the greater complexity in construction and the
requirement for
fail-safe systems in the power plant significantly add to costs of
construction when
compared with other thermal technologies. The generally base-load,
price-taking
operating profile with little ability to vary output weakens the market
position of nuclear
power plants. On a merchant basis, nuclear power has fared less well in
a low price
environment due to its relatively high fixed costs, low operational
flexibility, poor
reliability of the existing fleet and the resulting high balancing costs."
Chris
|