3 ms·

Why are we talking cost and not the pollution footprint.

• throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  Because people want easy answers and don't want to look at inconvenient facts. That mindset will destroy humanity.
• cinntaile 6y ago
  Not really sure why you were downvoted before since it's a valid question. We're talking cost since that's what the gp was talking about, I also believe that risk and cost is the right framework to think about these issues. Pollution is basically a cost, it's just that right now someone else besides the polluter will end up paying that cost sometime in the future. I think it would be a good thing if we could convert pollution to a cost that we get taxed on now, which is what a global carbon tax wants to achieve. That way you have to pay for what you pollute. It would definitely be a step in the right direction and perhaps the cost of nuclear would not be so great if all these externalities are taken into account. To be clear though. Just as I would like to see a carbon tax, I would also like to see nuclear paying actual risk premiums so that we can have a level playing field when choosing an energy source based on its LCOE or any similar criteria.