6 ms·

Because it is the only industry that is legally obliged to take into account almost all of its negative externalities, that is waste management and potential ac

Because it is the only industry that is legally obliged to take into account almost all of its negative externalities, that is waste management and potential accidents.

pydry 4y ago
If it did that it would actually be even more expensive. The disaster liability cap in America means plants need insurance that pays out up to $300 million but no more. Fukushima cost ~$800 billion, so they are essentially subsidized by the general public to the tune of 99.97% of what is probably their "real" insurance costs. So no, we are measurably on the hook for more negative externalities than we are for solar/wind.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  A “subsidy” that has never been paid. You’d be hard pressed to find a reactor with its backup power in the basement in the US, and especially not on the coast.
  - pydry 4y ago
    >A “subsidy” that has never been paid. Free insurance is a subsidy. Pretending that it isnt is dishonest. Japan paid $0 in 2010 and by 2012 an $800 billion bill came due. Recent nuclear legislation has focused on extending the legal life of aging plants. Nuclear power is getting more dangerous in America not safer. It ought to be a moot point anyway given the extreme cost of nuclear power without the subsidy.
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      Japan’s accident was entirely preventable and a similar scenario couldn’t happen at any facility in the US. Needing to build an ice wall to contain radioactive water pumped in from the ocean was a huge portion of the cost and truly unique.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        This will be equally true of the next trillion dollar accident and the one after. Circumstances that defeat defense in depth are necessarily unique and convoluted. My guess is the next one will involve at least one set of forged documents about components and some manager pushing past a boundary to meet ever tightening cost targets.
        ch4s3 4y ago
        There is no precedent for this. The NRC is constantly monitoring plants in the US and operating staff are regularly rotated geographically to prevent them from becoming complacent. There are so many layers of protection around nuclear power in the US that it would take many pages to describe. That you think it would be possible to forge documents under managerial pressure shows that you Don know the first thing about nuclear power in the US.
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        There are nuclear reactors in other places where it has happened https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Indictments_for_South_Korea_forgery_scandal-1010137.html https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Indictments_for_South_... Probably not a coincidence that it happened in the place with the lowest (unaudited) costs. The US nuclear program is first class when it comes to accountability, reliability, and safety but this is also the reason that it costs upwards of $12/W excluding the publicly funded portions of the NRC's budget (which is one of the moredirect places the trillion dollar free insurance manifests) and various other subsidies. You either get the safety or you get rid of the red tape driving up costs.
        ch4s3 4y ago
        I'm only talking about the US, but I would argue that the NRC is overkill in some key areas.
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
consumer451 4y ago
> is legally obliged to take into account almost all of its negative externalities I always thought waste disposal was not accounted for. Could you point me to any information indicating otherwise?
- ch4s3 4y ago
  Sorry for the amp link but here you go https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/12/18/nuclear-waste-why-theres-no-permanent-nuclear-waste-dump-in-us.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/12/18/nuc...
  - consumer451 4y ago
    Wow! Thanks, I had no idea. Usually localities fight for federal money, this is one case where that appears to not be the case. That article is a great read in any case.
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      Np. You should check out James Mahaffey’s books like Atomic Awakening if you’re interested in the subject. https://www.amazon.com/Atomic-Awakening-History-Future-Nuclear/dp/1605981273 https://www.amazon.com/Atomic-Awakening-History-Future-Nucle...
pencilguin 4y ago
That is not, in fact, why nukes are super-expensive. It is just a very cost-intensive technology, at every stage. Even its natural output after everything, process heat, is expensive to turn into useful power.

Because it is the only industry that is legally obliged to take into account almost all of its negative externalities, that is waste management and potential accidents.

pydry 4y ago

If it did that it would actually be even more expensive. The disaster liability cap in America means plants need insurance that pays out up to $300 million but no more. Fukushima cost ~$800 billion, so they are essentially subsidized by the general public to the tune of 99.97% of what is probably their "real" insurance costs. So no, we are measurably on the hook for more negative externalities than we are for solar/wind.

ch4s3 4y ago
A “subsidy” that has never been paid. You’d be hard pressed to find a reactor with its backup power in the basement in the US, and especially not on the coast.
- pydry 4y ago
  >A “subsidy” that has never been paid. Free insurance is a subsidy. Pretending that it isnt is dishonest. Japan paid $0 in 2010 and by 2012 an $800 billion bill came due. Recent nuclear legislation has focused on extending the legal life of aging plants. Nuclear power is getting more dangerous in America not safer. It ought to be a moot point anyway given the extreme cost of nuclear power without the subsidy.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    Japan’s accident was entirely preventable and a similar scenario couldn’t happen at any facility in the US. Needing to build an ice wall to contain radioactive water pumped in from the ocean was a huge portion of the cost and truly unique.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      This will be equally true of the next trillion dollar accident and the one after. Circumstances that defeat defense in depth are necessarily unique and convoluted. My guess is the next one will involve at least one set of forged documents about components and some manager pushing past a boundary to meet ever tightening cost targets.
      - ch4s3 4y ago
        There is no precedent for this. The NRC is constantly monitoring plants in the US and operating staff are regularly rotated geographically to prevent them from becoming complacent. There are so many layers of protection around nuclear power in the US that it would take many pages to describe. That you think it would be possible to forge documents under managerial pressure shows that you Don know the first thing about nuclear power in the US.
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        There are nuclear reactors in other places where it has happened https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Indictments_for_South_Korea_forgery_scandal-1010137.html https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Indictments_for_South_... Probably not a coincidence that it happened in the place with the lowest (unaudited) costs. The US nuclear program is first class when it comes to accountability, reliability, and safety but this is also the reason that it costs upwards of $12/W excluding the publicly funded portions of the NRC's budget (which is one of the moredirect places the trillion dollar free insurance manifests) and various other subsidies. You either get the safety or you get rid of the red tape driving up costs.
        ch4s3 4y ago
        I'm only talking about the US, but I would argue that the NRC is overkill in some key areas.
        Schroedingersat 4y ago

consumer451 4y ago

> is legally obliged to take into account almost all of its negative externalities I always thought waste disposal was not accounted for. Could you point me to any information indicating otherwise?

ch4s3 4y ago
Sorry for the amp link but here you go https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/12/18/nuclear-waste-why-theres-no-permanent-nuclear-waste-dump-in-us.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/12/18/nuc...
- consumer451 4y ago
  Wow! Thanks, I had no idea. Usually localities fight for federal money, this is one case where that appears to not be the case. That article is a great read in any case.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    Np. You should check out James Mahaffey’s books like Atomic Awakening if you’re interested in the subject. https://www.amazon.com/Atomic-Awakening-History-Future-Nuclear/dp/1605981273 https://www.amazon.com/Atomic-Awakening-History-Future-Nucle...

pencilguin 4y ago

That is not, in fact, why nukes are super-expensive. It is just a very cost-intensive technology, at every stage. Even its natural output after everything, process heat, is expensive to turn into useful power.