4 ms·

That would be nice arguments if they would actually be true. a) typically nuclear plants don't have to include all life cycle cost into their calculations. Ins

That would be nice arguments if they would actually be true. a) typically nuclear plants don't have to include all life cycle cost into their calculations. Insurance is essentially not included (no insurance is willing to cover nuclear disaster), storage costs are not included to the full extend (partly because we actually don't know the cost, storage for these amounts of time is unprecedented) b) is also falso both wind and solar have significantly lower ROI on energy than nuclear. A wind turbine has a break even (when you have produced more energy than it took to build it) after 18-24 month or so https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222703134_Meta-Analysis_of_Net_Energy_Return_for_Wind_Power_Systems https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222703134_Meta-Anal....

belorn 4y ago
No energy plant need to include insurance that cover disaster. People living downstream of a hydro electric dam have to pay their own insurance, and in the end it will still be the government that pick up the bill when people and homes are lost to catastrophic flooding. Mining raw material also produce a lot of waste, including radioactive waste, much which will never be safe for humans. Those are generally stored for an indefinite time in pools or just in piles near the mines, with a sign warning people of the toxic material. There will be no one to pay the bill for waste storage except governments when the mining company close down. This is why drinking water near old (or new) mines is a exceptional bad idea.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  That's not true, the operator of a windfarm definitely needs to have insurance (or be liable otherwise) for a possible accident that can happen (i.e. A rotor falling off and hitting a car), the thing about nuclear power plants (and hydro) is that generally the risks are so high that nobody wants to insure it. You seem to argue that because others are doing bad things it's OK for nuclear? I don't think that is a very good argument.
  - belorn 4y ago
    Offshore windfarms have zero insurance against environmental damages caused by changes in the water environment, nor does windfarms or PV farms has insurance against forest fires. If we want to be technical correct, nuclear plants and hydropower plants do have some insurance, for example if employees are harmed during work. What all power plants share is the inability to insure against risk that is direct to society at large. It not that the risk is high (which it isn't), but rather that in case of accident there isn't anything other than governments that could step in and take the cost. > You seem to argue that because others are doing bad things it's OK for nuclear? No, that is a bad faith interpretation. If we want power plants to pay insurance against risk that is place on society, then such requirement should be technology neutral. If we have historical evidence of harm to either society or the environment, directly connected to a method of producing energy, then producers using that method should pay a tax to government that represent the risk. Be that hydro, nuclear, fossil fuels, wind farms, PV, a battery farm or what have you. Quantify the risk and let researcher, experts and historians argue how much each specific plant should pay.

belorn 4y ago

No energy plant need to include insurance that cover disaster. People living downstream of a hydro electric dam have to pay their own insurance, and in the end it will still be the government that pick up the bill when people and homes are lost to catastrophic flooding. Mining raw material also produce a lot of waste, including radioactive waste, much which will never be safe for humans. Those are generally stored for an indefinite time in pools or just in piles near the mines, with a sign warning people of the toxic material. There will be no one to pay the bill for waste storage except governments when the mining company close down. This is why drinking water near old (or new) mines is a exceptional bad idea.

cycomanic 4y ago
That's not true, the operator of a windfarm definitely needs to have insurance (or be liable otherwise) for a possible accident that can happen (i.e. A rotor falling off and hitting a car), the thing about nuclear power plants (and hydro) is that generally the risks are so high that nobody wants to insure it. You seem to argue that because others are doing bad things it's OK for nuclear? I don't think that is a very good argument.
- belorn 4y ago
  Offshore windfarms have zero insurance against environmental damages caused by changes in the water environment, nor does windfarms or PV farms has insurance against forest fires. If we want to be technical correct, nuclear plants and hydropower plants do have some insurance, for example if employees are harmed during work. What all power plants share is the inability to insure against risk that is direct to society at large. It not that the risk is high (which it isn't), but rather that in case of accident there isn't anything other than governments that could step in and take the cost. > You seem to argue that because others are doing bad things it's OK for nuclear? No, that is a bad faith interpretation. If we want power plants to pay insurance against risk that is place on society, then such requirement should be technology neutral. If we have historical evidence of harm to either society or the environment, directly connected to a method of producing energy, then producers using that method should pay a tax to government that represent the risk. Be that hydro, nuclear, fossil fuels, wind farms, PV, a battery farm or what have you. Quantify the risk and let researcher, experts and historians argue how much each specific plant should pay.