4 ms·

I'm not sure why HN is so market friendly, but when it comes to nuclear power, most are very much in favor. Although nuclear power is the most market distorted

I'm not sure why HN is so market friendly, but when it comes to nuclear power, most are very much in favor. Although nuclear power is the most market distorted energy production there is. If societies - see Fukushima - wouldn't pay for the risks insurers don't take and heavily subsidize nuclear power profiting energy global companies, there would be no nuclear power. If as a startup I'd get that amount of money from our government, I would have no need for customers. So hurray for free markets and that Germany stopped this nonsense.

Safety1stClyde 9y ago
> If societies - see Fukushima - wouldn't pay for the risks insurers don't take and heavily subsidize nuclear power profiting energy global companies, there would be no nuclear power. Nuclear power is much less subsidised than solar power or wind power. The whole solar panel industry would not have existed without endless subsidies. As for the risks, nuclear remains the safest form of power. http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energ...
- unlmtd 9y ago
  The cost of nuclear fission is ignored/not-understood. It's also impossible to insure against the risks (see Fukishima). As such, it is completly illegal. Also note that it is the cornerstone of nuclear-fission bombs. So nuclear power is the most destructive endeavor of all. It dwarves fossil fuels in potential destructive power. Our survival depends on banning all nuclear fission.
- caf 9y ago
  The whole solar panel industry would not have existed without endless subsidies. That is not literally true. Commercial solar panels for both remote-area power and spacecraft existed before subsidies aimed at large-scale generation. On the other hand, the nuclear power industry certainly wouldn't have existed without entirely state-funded, military nuclear programs.
  - jimnotgym 9y ago
    I also feel we have never quite get to the true cost of nuclear. In the UK there are obsolete nuclear stations where nothing much is happening to decommission them, and they are already billions over budget in their decommissioning. I have begun to feel that it is the ultimate in cheap power now, and the next generation can pick up the cost.
wahern 9y ago
The fact that insurance needs to be subsidized has more to do with the extreme possibilities--one bad accident and the insurer is broke. Insurers exclude terrorism and war for the same reason. And for the same reason the government effectively subsidizes those risks by giving aid after such events. Also, a nuclear plant will be responsible for any and all externalities. You can't hide a radiation incident. Whereas coal can poison thousands of people for years and the emitter and their insurer would never have to worry about liability. Likewise, thousands of solar panel installers can become disabled and draw benefits without anybody blaming the industry, or even thinking to compare with injury rates for similar work at nuclear plants. Finally, the costs imposed on nuclear power by unnecessarily burdensome regulation far exceed any subsidies. If there was a less regulated market there'd be many more nuclear plants. There'd also probably be many more, albeit mostly minor, nuclear incidents, just like there are many incidents with coal (e.g. fly ash reservoir breaches). But in any event, as things stand we only demand perfection from one industry while accepting some number of externalities as the cost of doing business in every other industry.
- pessimizer 9y ago
  > The fact that insurance needs to be subsidized has more to do with the extreme possibilities--one bad accident and the insurer is broke. Insurers exclude terrorism and war for the same reason. And for the same reason the government effectively subsidizes those risks by giving aid after such events. The government should also discourage terrorism and war when possible.
hueving 9y ago
>I'm not sure why HN is so market friendly, but when it comes to nuclear power, most are very much in favor. If everyone was only market friendly, nobody would be advocating for solar/wind/coal/etc. None of them compete with coal and gas when it comes to unsubsidized cost.
- _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
  Solar is cheaper than coal without subsidies (and coal is/was subsidized a lot in western countries over the last decades primarily b/c of jobs). Not to nitpick but "advocating for ../../coal/etc. [...] None of them compete with coal" doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
  - hueving 9y ago
    No it's not, otherwise that would be massive news. The only way it's cheaper is through charging coal for externalities, which is the exact point I'm making.

Safety1stClyde 9y ago

> If societies - see Fukushima - wouldn't pay for the risks insurers don't take and heavily subsidize nuclear power profiting energy global companies, there would be no nuclear power. Nuclear power is much less subsidised than solar power or wind power. The whole solar panel industry would not have existed without endless subsidies. As for the risks, nuclear remains the safest form of power. http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energ...

unlmtd 9y ago
The cost of nuclear fission is ignored/not-understood. It's also impossible to insure against the risks (see Fukishima). As such, it is completly illegal. Also note that it is the cornerstone of nuclear-fission bombs. So nuclear power is the most destructive endeavor of all. It dwarves fossil fuels in potential destructive power. Our survival depends on banning all nuclear fission.
caf 9y ago
The whole solar panel industry would not have existed without endless subsidies. That is not literally true. Commercial solar panels for both remote-area power and spacecraft existed before subsidies aimed at large-scale generation. On the other hand, the nuclear power industry certainly wouldn't have existed without entirely state-funded, military nuclear programs.
- jimnotgym 9y ago
  I also feel we have never quite get to the true cost of nuclear. In the UK there are obsolete nuclear stations where nothing much is happening to decommission them, and they are already billions over budget in their decommissioning. I have begun to feel that it is the ultimate in cheap power now, and the next generation can pick up the cost.

wahern 9y ago

The fact that insurance needs to be subsidized has more to do with the extreme possibilities--one bad accident and the insurer is broke. Insurers exclude terrorism and war for the same reason. And for the same reason the government effectively subsidizes those risks by giving aid after such events. Also, a nuclear plant will be responsible for any and all externalities. You can't hide a radiation incident. Whereas coal can poison thousands of people for years and the emitter and their insurer would never have to worry about liability. Likewise, thousands of solar panel installers can become disabled and draw benefits without anybody blaming the industry, or even thinking to compare with injury rates for similar work at nuclear plants. Finally, the costs imposed on nuclear power by unnecessarily burdensome regulation far exceed any subsidies. If there was a less regulated market there'd be many more nuclear plants. There'd also probably be many more, albeit mostly minor, nuclear incidents, just like there are many incidents with coal (e.g. fly ash reservoir breaches). But in any event, as things stand we only demand perfection from one industry while accepting some number of externalities as the cost of doing business in every other industry.

pessimizer 9y ago
> The fact that insurance needs to be subsidized has more to do with the extreme possibilities--one bad accident and the insurer is broke. Insurers exclude terrorism and war for the same reason. And for the same reason the government effectively subsidizes those risks by giving aid after such events. The government should also discourage terrorism and war when possible.

hueving 9y ago

>I'm not sure why HN is so market friendly, but when it comes to nuclear power, most are very much in favor. If everyone was only market friendly, nobody would be advocating for solar/wind/coal/etc. None of them compete with coal and gas when it comes to unsubsidized cost.

_Codemonkeyism 9y ago
Solar is cheaper than coal without subsidies (and coal is/was subsidized a lot in western countries over the last decades primarily b/c of jobs). Not to nitpick but "advocating for ../../coal/etc. [...] None of them compete with coal" doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
- hueving 9y ago
  No it's not, otherwise that would be massive news. The only way it's cheaper is through charging coal for externalities, which is the exact point I'm making.