3 ms·
It isnt the law making it expensive. It's capital costs. It would be even more expensive if it didnt get a free ride on insurance - through disaster liability
by pydry 4y ago
It isnt the law making it expensive. It's capital costs.
It would be even more expensive if it didnt get a free ride on insurance - through disaster liability caps set at ~0.05% of the costs of one Fukushima.
- adastra22 4y agoBut the point is those capital costs are so high because nuclear is required to meet a threshold of safety far, far in excess of any other energy source. There are instances of nuclear plants having to shield radiation to be lower than background levels. Which beyond being absolutely pointless, it adds weight, which adds concrete, which adds capital costs and CO2 emissions.
- pydry 4y agoThe only reason it exists at all is because it gets a free ride on insurance through the catastrophe liability cap. IMHO it's a bit premature to talk about deregulating it without first making sure it shoulders full liability for the damage it would cause by neglecting important safety.
- nullc 4y agoYou can easily find the locations of coal power plants by looking at maps of cancer rates. Nuclear is the only 'energy source' that is required to capture pretty much any of its externalities at all, so arguments that they don't capture all of them are a bit odd.
- pydry 4y agoIf it has a catastrophe liability cap how can it possibly be capturing all of its externalities? Nuclear power never pays for disaster cleanup and still can't compete with renewables.