4 ms·

It's not that straightforward unfortunately. Let's leave the whole waste deposal issue aside for now, it seems to be still the case that the free market conside

It's not that straightforward unfortunately. Let's leave the whole waste deposal issue aside for now, it seems to be still the case that the free market considers nuclear power plants too risky. What I mean by that is that no operator can currently afford to get private insurance for their plants, which is why plants are insured publically. Markets are not omniscient of course, and they might be ineffective, but it's something to think about when discussing nuclear energy.

leeoniya 5y ago
> the free market considers nuclear power plants too risky the free market is made up of people who primarily watch sensational evening news and follow clickbait social media. the actual statistics are still well on the side of nuclear in terms of safety and externalities (as far as i understand)
- ahelwer 5y ago
  Nonsense. The "actual statistics" from the perspective of insurance companies are that if anything bad happens, your insurance company is going bankrupt. It doesn't matter how unlikely that's been calculated to be in some spreadsheet model, no smart insurance company will take that bet.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    CO2 tax is still not included into the energy price. If it's done, nuclear will suddenly become much more viable.
    - ahelwer 5y ago
      My point had nothing to do with energy prices and CO2 tax would not change the fundamental calculus faced by insurance companies.
treeman79 5y ago
The free market could easily build nuclear power plants. The government regulatory hurdles are what keep it from being profitable.
- isomel 5y ago
  Even with less regulation, the problem is that it takes a huge amount of capital, and you need a decade or more to get return on your investment. So it is really not that interesting for a private investor.