4 ms·

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

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