5 ms·

Ultimately it will be "the people" (via the government) that end up paying for the proper decommissioning of a project anyway; so it makes sense for that cost t

Ultimately it will be "the people" (via the government) that end up paying for the proper decommissioning of a project anyway; so it makes sense for that cost to be paid in to a resource pool at that level where at least if the funds are raided "we did it to our selves".

mirimir 8y ago
I don't get why the government (general public) ought to pay for decommissioning. Bankruptcy doesn't erase environmental liability (as with student loans). And consider Bernard Madoff, for example. Prosecutors did a decent job of clawing back funds from Madoff, his wife, and some arguably complicit "investors".
- simonh 8y ago
  Because if they don’t, no such plants would ever get built. So the real question is do we want these plants or not? Of course no is a perfectly viable answer, but so is yes.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Lots of other stuff gets built without such policies. So why not nuclear plants that are safe enough to be viable without them?
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      The cost of decommissioning a plant is high, and spread out over a long period. It would be too easy for the capitalists to take the money and run, and the societal costs too high to leave it in their hands. Maybe they'd be able to recover funds in court, that's an expensive lengthy process that doesn't address immediate concerns. And it further encourages the owners into more unsafe actions to try and hide any misdeeds.
      - mirimir 8y ago
        Well yeah. But if governments will get stuck paying for decommissioning, they should just own the plants, and pay operators some fair management fee. It's just not fair to let firms profit, and then walk away.
        simonh 8y ago
        Which would mean the government and tax payers paying the full up front investment and operating costs. The purpose of bringing in firms is to attract investment and give them an incentive to apply their technology and expertise. If you don’t want any of those things then sure, do it as a fully public sector project, but if you do then you have to at least offer the possibility of a profit.
Mvandenbergh 8y ago
The Hinckley Point plant in the UK will pay for its own decommissioning - and has to put money aside as it operates to fund it, so a later bankruptcy wouldn't affect the liability. Of course, it if was decommissioned after only a short period of operation, that wouldn't work.
- DoctorOetker 8y ago
  Except the next generations can't time-travel snatch the current population: Technically it can put aside money while it operates: this either makes it somewhat scarce now to the benefit of current capital holders, or this encourages injection of fresh money by the central banks. Then if in a few generations away something goes wrong and the stash of money is released it devalues money by buying up labor manhours (thus making manhours scarcer for all the holders of capital in the future).

mirimir 8y ago

I don't get why the government (general public) ought to pay for decommissioning. Bankruptcy doesn't erase environmental liability (as with student loans). And consider Bernard Madoff, for example. Prosecutors did a decent job of clawing back funds from Madoff, his wife, and some arguably complicit "investors".

simonh 8y ago
Because if they don’t, no such plants would ever get built. So the real question is do we want these plants or not? Of course no is a perfectly viable answer, but so is yes.
- mirimir 8y ago
  Lots of other stuff gets built without such policies. So why not nuclear plants that are safe enough to be viable without them?
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    The cost of decommissioning a plant is high, and spread out over a long period. It would be too easy for the capitalists to take the money and run, and the societal costs too high to leave it in their hands. Maybe they'd be able to recover funds in court, that's an expensive lengthy process that doesn't address immediate concerns. And it further encourages the owners into more unsafe actions to try and hide any misdeeds.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      Well yeah. But if governments will get stuck paying for decommissioning, they should just own the plants, and pay operators some fair management fee. It's just not fair to let firms profit, and then walk away.
      - simonh 8y ago
        Which would mean the government and tax payers paying the full up front investment and operating costs. The purpose of bringing in firms is to attract investment and give them an incentive to apply their technology and expertise. If you don’t want any of those things then sure, do it as a fully public sector project, but if you do then you have to at least offer the possibility of a profit.

Mvandenbergh 8y ago

The Hinckley Point plant in the UK will pay for its own decommissioning - and has to put money aside as it operates to fund it, so a later bankruptcy wouldn't affect the liability. Of course, it if was decommissioned after only a short period of operation, that wouldn't work.

DoctorOetker 8y ago
Except the next generations can't time-travel snatch the current population: Technically it can put aside money while it operates: this either makes it somewhat scarce now to the benefit of current capital holders, or this encourages injection of fresh money by the central banks. Then if in a few generations away something goes wrong and the stash of money is released it devalues money by buying up labor manhours (thus making manhours scarcer for all the holders of capital in the future).