6 ms·

As a German I don't care. I just want two things: 1. The energy company pays market rate insurance for their nuclear plants. Not "we take the profit, taxpayers

As a German I don't care. I just want two things: 1. The energy company pays market rate insurance for their nuclear plants. Not "we take the profit, taxpayers pay for the disaster" 2. The energy company sets up a trust to pay for the safe storage of nuclear waste and cleaning up the plant should they go bust (again "we take ...")

rullelito 4y ago
Isn't this already how it works?
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  No, nuclear gets free state insurance and free waste disposal (as well as a bunch of other subsidies). This is why everyone laughs when country claim their nuclear programs are "peaceful power generation projects".
  - google234123 4y ago
    It would be nice if environmental activists didn’t block us from burying the waste…
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - LatteLazy 4y ago
      Environmental activists and everyone else who is happy for it to be buried but not within 100miles of their house... Plus no operator is paying for disposal, even if there were a magic place willing to accept the stuff.
- ThrowawayTestr 4y ago
  Yes. Unlike gas and coal, nuke plants have to pay to clean up their waste before it's created.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - the8472 4y ago
    Not quite, the mandatory insurance is capped at 2.5G€. The taxpayer would have to cover the rest. Compared with the fukushima cleanup costs that's quite insufficient.
    - KingOfCoders 4y ago
      Yes, and no one knows what Fukushima will costs, current estimates differ, but $200G are mentioned - the insurance would be 1% of costs.
- Kon5ole 4y ago
  No, see for example the Asse II mine, where taxpayers must pay for relocating nuclear waste since the operator no longer exists as a going concern. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine As far as I have been able to determine this is in fact how nuclear power is run in most of the world. Nuclear power is heavily subsidized by borrowing money from future generations. We are currently entering that future, as for example France has noticed recently. According to recent news stories their operator is 40 bn in debt and needs to make 50bn more in investments to keep plants running, meaning it has charged at least 110 bn too little for the power it sold in decades past. One of the major downsides of nuclear power is that whenever the nuclear operator runs out of money, taxpayers absolutely have to pay, there is no option not to. From a cynical financial perspective this effectively means nuclear power has limitless credit and can sell power for fantasy pricing, way less than it actually costs. So to the GP's point, if nuclear had to pay the actual, future costs of the energy it provides today, and it was baked in to the price per kWh it sells on the open market, we'd be better informed about the correct course of action.
  - elefanten 4y ago
    But that dynamic is true of other energy sources too. We’ve never priced fossil fuels correctly vs their externalities. So doing that only for nuclear would be an even greater distortion.
    - Kon5ole 4y ago
      Absolutely true, we are probably in the middle of the handful of generations of humans that have spent all of earths oil reserves. Did we pay a fair price for it?
    - iforgotpassword 4y ago
      Shouldn't we instead try to go for better solutions? What do those numbers look like for wind and solar?
    - KingOfCoders 4y ago
      1. Whataboutism 2. The topic of the discussion was about atomic energy 3. Yes
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Kamq 4y ago
That's entirely fair, but shouldn't other types of plants be expected to do the same things? My understanding is that they aren't currently (could be different in Germany).
ReadTheLicense 4y ago
- dang 4y ago
  Please don't post ideological or nationalistic flamewar comments, or any flamewar comments, to HN. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
orbifold 4y ago
Great but I want the same deal for the coal and gas companies that produce electricity, make them responsible for every ton of CO2 they emitted and make them responsible for removing it from the atmosphere.
- number6 4y ago
  This is in place via EU-ETS: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-system-eu-ets_en https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-sy...
  - hgomersall 4y ago
    The price of co2 in the ETS is an order of magnitude too low to deal with it's removal, so no, this is not in place with the ETS.
    - xorcist 4y ago
      I believe the idea is to adjust the price over time. The hard part is getting such a system in place, not ramping it up.
      - number6 4y ago
        There is a finite number of certificates - like bitcoin. Price adjusts as certificates are uses up. New certificates can be created by capturing carbon... similar to bitcoin mining.
        xorcist 4y ago
        Yes, but the supply of certificates has been set as to ensure a soft transition to this system. When the supply tightens, prices will go up. At least that's the theory. In the current political climate where politicians all over the world compete on subsidizing electricity and fossil fuels to combat the recent price hikes for all poorly insulated home owners and car drivers, who knows what will happen.
mpweiher 4y ago
1. The high cost of insurance is a political problem, it has nothing to do with the actual damage that can occur. So making the response political is actually fair. 2. Waste storage is a solved problem, even for the current idiotic way we're doing it. Currently, the vast majority of the "waste" is actually unused fuel. Why? Because the fuel is too cheap to make extracting all of it worthwhile.
pyuser583 4y ago
1. You can only insure against losses to the insured. Most of the concerns regarding externalities. Insurance only will help if you have a legal regime that allows people injured by the externalities to be made while from the insured. Imagine you have a situation like the one in Chernobyl: a couple dozen people die. A much larger number of people need to have regular checkups for life, but as a result of said checkups have a normal or slightly longer lifespan. I’m not sure how health insurance works in Germany, but who pays for the lifetime of checkups? Is the power company liable? Will there be a suit? The free market rates could fluctuate wildly, but wouldn’t have any relationship to whether nuclear is better than coal. Also, there’s no guarantee that an a policy would even be offered for more than a year or so. Future insurers might just say, sorry, the admin costs are too much (admin costs could be insane). 2. If the plant goes bust because the government decides to “phase out nuclear” - it’s completely legitimate to ask the government to help with shutdown costs.
koonsolo 4y ago
As a Belgian I only want 1 thing: no money going to Russia. I'm willing to pay the price for that.
- parineum 4y ago
  One of the best things about nuclear is that it can really be put anywhere. It's hard to price in the benefit of energy independence/sovereignty but it's definitely should be a huge factor in it's favor.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
cypress66 4y ago
That would only be fair if you required coal plants to pay for all the lives shortened or affected by its pollution. And that would be many orders of magnitude higher than the insurance that you are proposing. And no, CO2 taxes aren't the same (air pollution and global warming are separate things), and even then they are absolutely tiny.
Ekaros 4y ago
I hope that point 1. applies to hydro. They should be required to post a bond that covers fully everything downstream from them with possible catastrophic worst scale failure. And keep increasing it when more is constructed.

rullelito 4y ago

Isn't this already how it works?

LatteLazy 4y ago
No, nuclear gets free state insurance and free waste disposal (as well as a bunch of other subsidies). This is why everyone laughs when country claim their nuclear programs are "peaceful power generation projects".
- google234123 4y ago
  It would be nice if environmental activists didn’t block us from burying the waste…
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - LatteLazy 4y ago
    Environmental activists and everyone else who is happy for it to be buried but not within 100miles of their house... Plus no operator is paying for disposal, even if there were a magic place willing to accept the stuff.
ThrowawayTestr 4y ago
Yes. Unlike gas and coal, nuke plants have to pay to clean up their waste before it's created.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- the8472 4y ago
  Not quite, the mandatory insurance is capped at 2.5G€. The taxpayer would have to cover the rest. Compared with the fukushima cleanup costs that's quite insufficient.
  - KingOfCoders 4y ago
    Yes, and no one knows what Fukushima will costs, current estimates differ, but $200G are mentioned - the insurance would be 1% of costs.
Kon5ole 4y ago
No, see for example the Asse II mine, where taxpayers must pay for relocating nuclear waste since the operator no longer exists as a going concern. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine As far as I have been able to determine this is in fact how nuclear power is run in most of the world. Nuclear power is heavily subsidized by borrowing money from future generations. We are currently entering that future, as for example France has noticed recently. According to recent news stories their operator is 40 bn in debt and needs to make 50bn more in investments to keep plants running, meaning it has charged at least 110 bn too little for the power it sold in decades past. One of the major downsides of nuclear power is that whenever the nuclear operator runs out of money, taxpayers absolutely have to pay, there is no option not to. From a cynical financial perspective this effectively means nuclear power has limitless credit and can sell power for fantasy pricing, way less than it actually costs. So to the GP's point, if nuclear had to pay the actual, future costs of the energy it provides today, and it was baked in to the price per kWh it sells on the open market, we'd be better informed about the correct course of action.
- elefanten 4y ago
  But that dynamic is true of other energy sources too. We’ve never priced fossil fuels correctly vs their externalities. So doing that only for nuclear would be an even greater distortion.
  - Kon5ole 4y ago
    Absolutely true, we are probably in the middle of the handful of generations of humans that have spent all of earths oil reserves. Did we pay a fair price for it?
  - iforgotpassword 4y ago
    Shouldn't we instead try to go for better solutions? What do those numbers look like for wind and solar?
  - KingOfCoders 4y ago
    1. Whataboutism 2. The topic of the discussion was about atomic energy 3. Yes

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Kamq 4y ago

That's entirely fair, but shouldn't other types of plants be expected to do the same things? My understanding is that they aren't currently (could be different in Germany).

ReadTheLicense 4y ago

dang 4y ago
Please don't post ideological or nationalistic flamewar comments, or any flamewar comments, to HN. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

orbifold 4y ago

Great but I want the same deal for the coal and gas companies that produce electricity, make them responsible for every ton of CO2 they emitted and make them responsible for removing it from the atmosphere.

number6 4y ago
This is in place via EU-ETS: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-system-eu-ets_en https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-sy...
- hgomersall 4y ago
  The price of co2 in the ETS is an order of magnitude too low to deal with it's removal, so no, this is not in place with the ETS.
  - xorcist 4y ago
    I believe the idea is to adjust the price over time. The hard part is getting such a system in place, not ramping it up.
    - number6 4y ago
      There is a finite number of certificates - like bitcoin. Price adjusts as certificates are uses up. New certificates can be created by capturing carbon... similar to bitcoin mining.
      - xorcist 4y ago
        Yes, but the supply of certificates has been set as to ensure a soft transition to this system. When the supply tightens, prices will go up. At least that's the theory. In the current political climate where politicians all over the world compete on subsidizing electricity and fossil fuels to combat the recent price hikes for all poorly insulated home owners and car drivers, who knows what will happen.

mpweiher 4y ago

1. The high cost of insurance is a political problem, it has nothing to do with the actual damage that can occur. So making the response political is actually fair. 2. Waste storage is a solved problem, even for the current idiotic way we're doing it. Currently, the vast majority of the "waste" is actually unused fuel. Why? Because the fuel is too cheap to make extracting all of it worthwhile.

pyuser583 4y ago

1. You can only insure against losses to the insured. Most of the concerns regarding externalities. Insurance only will help if you have a legal regime that allows people injured by the externalities to be made while from the insured. Imagine you have a situation like the one in Chernobyl: a couple dozen people die. A much larger number of people need to have regular checkups for life, but as a result of said checkups have a normal or slightly longer lifespan. I’m not sure how health insurance works in Germany, but who pays for the lifetime of checkups? Is the power company liable? Will there be a suit? The free market rates could fluctuate wildly, but wouldn’t have any relationship to whether nuclear is better than coal. Also, there’s no guarantee that an a policy would even be offered for more than a year or so. Future insurers might just say, sorry, the admin costs are too much (admin costs could be insane). 2. If the plant goes bust because the government decides to “phase out nuclear” - it’s completely legitimate to ask the government to help with shutdown costs.

koonsolo 4y ago

As a Belgian I only want 1 thing: no money going to Russia. I'm willing to pay the price for that.

parineum 4y ago
One of the best things about nuclear is that it can really be put anywhere. It's hard to price in the benefit of energy independence/sovereignty but it's definitely should be a huge factor in it's favor.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

cypress66 4y ago

That would only be fair if you required coal plants to pay for all the lives shortened or affected by its pollution. And that would be many orders of magnitude higher than the insurance that you are proposing. And no, CO2 taxes aren't the same (air pollution and global warming are separate things), and even then they are absolutely tiny.

Ekaros 4y ago

I hope that point 1. applies to hydro. They should be required to post a bond that covers fully everything downstream from them with possible catastrophic worst scale failure. And keep increasing it when more is constructed.