5 ms·

However nuclear is calculated at true cost, solar and wind is not. And nuclear is also calculated in the past plus its been underdeveloped the last 30 years.

However nuclear is calculated at true cost, solar and wind is not. And nuclear is also calculated in the past plus its been underdeveloped the last 30 years. Backup energy for wind and solar is not included wich have to be either coal, gas, oil or nuclear to compensate for the low capacity factor wind and solar which is at 20-40 compared to nuclear which is at 90. So even if wind and solar were cheaper it only provides at the will of the weather. I would love to se a proper non-partisan calculation where everything gets calculated in.

atq2119 7y ago
> However nuclear is calculated at true cost That seems highly doubtful. The amount of explicit and implicit subsidies to nuclear power via government programs is massive. And then add the fact that nuclear power is exempt from having to pay for adequate insurance...
ZeroGravitas 7y ago
There's lots of these in existence, basically every government has run them while deciding what policies to adopt. Here's a nice readable one that's fact checking a right-wing former Prime Minister who claimed that renewables plus storage was cheaper than coal or nuclear: https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-12/is-renewable-power-cheaper-than-coal-nuclear-malcolm-turnbull/11495558 https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-12/is-renewable-power...
the_why_of_y 7y ago
How exactly is the insurance that nuclear gets for catastrophic events priced in? You know, the insurance that no private insurer is willing to offer, so what's going to happen is the nuclear operating company declares bankruptcy and the tax payer pays for the cleanup.
- ThomPete 7y ago
  The operating company is insured and pays for the cleanup.
  - whalebird 7y ago
    Insured by whom? You need to understand how insurance companies operate: They gather data, they calculate the risk vs. the cost of paying out, they add a markup - that's your price. There is not enough data to do this with catastrophic nuclear accidents.
    - ThomPete 7y ago
      I understand how they work and I have done work both for insurance companies and re-insurers, nuclear power plants are insured a little different. Here are some facts on how it works. "Currently, owners of nuclear power plants pay premiums for $375 million in private liability coverage for each nuclear reactor they own. If there is an incident at a nuclear plant, and the $375 million in coverage is not sufficient, the owner’s coverage is supplemented by the second layer of protection, which is supplied by the nuclear power industry as a whole. Under the Price-Anderson Act, all reactor owners are committed to paying their share of any damages that exceed the incident reactor owner’s first-tier limit of $375 million—up to $111.9 million per reactor. Since are currently 104 reactors in operation, the amount that would be available in the industry pool to pay claims totals $12.6 billion (2011). " It works because nuclear accidents are extremely rare and less dangerous than wind and solar let alone coal, oil and gas. https://www.iii.org/article/insurance-coverage-nuclear-accidents https://www.iii.org/article/insurance-coverage-nuclear-accid...
      - jdjdjjsjs 7y ago
        Wait...nuclear accidents (e.g.s Chernobyl and Fukushima) are less dangerous than wind and solar? What sort of blatant BS is this.
        ThomPete 7y ago
        I didn't say that. I said that nuclear power is safer than wind and solar and any other form of energy EVEN including Chernobyl and Fukushima.
      - the_why_of_y 7y ago

atq2119 7y ago

> However nuclear is calculated at true cost That seems highly doubtful. The amount of explicit and implicit subsidies to nuclear power via government programs is massive. And then add the fact that nuclear power is exempt from having to pay for adequate insurance...

ZeroGravitas 7y ago

There's lots of these in existence, basically every government has run them while deciding what policies to adopt. Here's a nice readable one that's fact checking a right-wing former Prime Minister who claimed that renewables plus storage was cheaper than coal or nuclear: https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-12/is-renewable-power-cheaper-than-coal-nuclear-malcolm-turnbull/11495558 https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-12/is-renewable-power...

the_why_of_y 7y ago

How exactly is the insurance that nuclear gets for catastrophic events priced in? You know, the insurance that no private insurer is willing to offer, so what's going to happen is the nuclear operating company declares bankruptcy and the tax payer pays for the cleanup.

ThomPete 7y ago
The operating company is insured and pays for the cleanup.
- whalebird 7y ago
  Insured by whom? You need to understand how insurance companies operate: They gather data, they calculate the risk vs. the cost of paying out, they add a markup - that's your price. There is not enough data to do this with catastrophic nuclear accidents.
  - ThomPete 7y ago
    I understand how they work and I have done work both for insurance companies and re-insurers, nuclear power plants are insured a little different. Here are some facts on how it works. "Currently, owners of nuclear power plants pay premiums for $375 million in private liability coverage for each nuclear reactor they own. If there is an incident at a nuclear plant, and the $375 million in coverage is not sufficient, the owner’s coverage is supplemented by the second layer of protection, which is supplied by the nuclear power industry as a whole. Under the Price-Anderson Act, all reactor owners are committed to paying their share of any damages that exceed the incident reactor owner’s first-tier limit of $375 million—up to $111.9 million per reactor. Since are currently 104 reactors in operation, the amount that would be available in the industry pool to pay claims totals $12.6 billion (2011). " It works because nuclear accidents are extremely rare and less dangerous than wind and solar let alone coal, oil and gas. https://www.iii.org/article/insurance-coverage-nuclear-accidents https://www.iii.org/article/insurance-coverage-nuclear-accid...
    - jdjdjjsjs 7y ago
      Wait...nuclear accidents (e.g.s Chernobyl and Fukushima) are less dangerous than wind and solar? What sort of blatant BS is this.
      - ThomPete 7y ago
        I didn't say that. I said that nuclear power is safer than wind and solar and any other form of energy EVEN including Chernobyl and Fukushima.
    - the_why_of_y 7y ago