3 ms·

> All estimates for the cost of nuclear power are based on [...] leaving the unknown to future taxpayers. That's true for any kind of power and, more generally

by pyrale 4y ago

> All estimates for the cost of nuclear power are based on [...] leaving the unknown to future taxpayers. That's true for any kind of power and, more generally, for any kind of human activity. You don't pay the real cost when you wear a pfc coat. You don't pay the real cost for the plastic-wrapped takeout you buy. You don't pay the real cost for the co2-emitting taxi you hail. You don't pay the real cost for the industrial agriculture you rely on. You don't pay the real cost for the water you drink. Accounting is not meant to measure "real costs, it's just a short-term measure of human activity.

quonn 4y ago
So what's the real future cost of a photovoltaic panel then? Will there be people alive in 100 years that need to spend money on my panel or something really bad happens?
- pyrale 4y ago
  Is your solar panel built using power from solar panels? Where were the required ores mined, and what pollution did it generate? Was the ground fully cleaned and the environment fully restored? What impact did that have on populations, and what impact did the new activity of these populations have? Were there any effluents produced in the manufacturing of your solar panels, and how were they treated? Once your solar panel reaches its end of life, who will collect it for recycling? How efficient is the recycling? How much power does that recycling cost, and how is it produced? Are there parts that are deemed uneconomical to reprocess into new solar panels and used for other activities? Looking at the current state of e-waste, I'm not sure the outlook 100 years from now is great.
Kon5ole 4y ago
>That's true for any kind of power and, more generally, for any kind of human activity. You're thinking philosophically perhaps? :) I mean what you have to pay, financially, to be clear. In the sense that when you don't want to pay for more solar power, you close the plant and stop paying. That's not an option for nuclear power plants. All closed nuclear power plants are still costing money.
- pyrale 4y ago
  > You're thinking philosophically perhaps? :) I'm using the very same definition you used. If we take one example I gave, there is $0 in the cost a taxi ride provisioned to pay for insurance losses related to climate change, current or future.
  - Kon5ole 4y ago
    >I'm using the very same definition you used. >If we take one example I gave, there is $0 in the cost a taxi ride provisioned to pay for insurance losses related to climate change, current or future. That is not the same definition. To continue the metaphor, I'm talking only about the money you have to pay to the taxi driver according to the meter. :) Nobody knows how to turn off the meter on a "nuclear taxi". Someone has to pay it even after the taxi has been demolished, the driver has retired, and the passenger is dead.
    - pyrale 4y ago
      > Nobody knows how to turn off the meter on a "nuclear taxi". Someone has to pay it even after the taxi has been demolished, the driver has retired, and the passenger is dead. The same is true for a regular taxi. No one is going to put carbon back into the ground when you kick the bucket, and no one can put a price on the actual cost.
      - Kon5ole 4y ago
        >The same is true for a regular taxi. No, for "regular taxis" you just stop paying after you have closed the plant. Meaning, again, that if a normal power plant operator goes belly up, you can just leave the power plants in place. Nobody has to pay anything. When the same happens for nuclear, taxpayers have to pay.
        pyrale 4y ago
        The carbon released by your normal power plant doesn't vanish as the plant closes. And someone is definitely paying for that (e.g. [1]). That's more or less equivalent to the good old times of nuclear industry dumping their waste at sea. [1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/07/climate-change-is-making-some-homes-too-costly-to-insure.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/07/climate-change-is-making-som...

by pyrale 4y ago

quonn 4y ago

So what's the real future cost of a photovoltaic panel then? Will there be people alive in 100 years that need to spend money on my panel or something really bad happens?

pyrale 4y ago
Is your solar panel built using power from solar panels? Where were the required ores mined, and what pollution did it generate? Was the ground fully cleaned and the environment fully restored? What impact did that have on populations, and what impact did the new activity of these populations have? Were there any effluents produced in the manufacturing of your solar panels, and how were they treated? Once your solar panel reaches its end of life, who will collect it for recycling? How efficient is the recycling? How much power does that recycling cost, and how is it produced? Are there parts that are deemed uneconomical to reprocess into new solar panels and used for other activities? Looking at the current state of e-waste, I'm not sure the outlook 100 years from now is great.

Kon5ole 4y ago

>That's true for any kind of power and, more generally, for any kind of human activity. You're thinking philosophically perhaps? :) I mean what you have to pay, financially, to be clear. In the sense that when you don't want to pay for more solar power, you close the plant and stop paying. That's not an option for nuclear power plants. All closed nuclear power plants are still costing money.

pyrale 4y ago
> You're thinking philosophically perhaps? :) I'm using the very same definition you used. If we take one example I gave, there is $0 in the cost a taxi ride provisioned to pay for insurance losses related to climate change, current or future.
- Kon5ole 4y ago
  >I'm using the very same definition you used. >If we take one example I gave, there is $0 in the cost a taxi ride provisioned to pay for insurance losses related to climate change, current or future. That is not the same definition. To continue the metaphor, I'm talking only about the money you have to pay to the taxi driver according to the meter. :) Nobody knows how to turn off the meter on a "nuclear taxi". Someone has to pay it even after the taxi has been demolished, the driver has retired, and the passenger is dead.
  - pyrale 4y ago
    > Nobody knows how to turn off the meter on a "nuclear taxi". Someone has to pay it even after the taxi has been demolished, the driver has retired, and the passenger is dead. The same is true for a regular taxi. No one is going to put carbon back into the ground when you kick the bucket, and no one can put a price on the actual cost.
    - Kon5ole 4y ago
      >The same is true for a regular taxi. No, for "regular taxis" you just stop paying after you have closed the plant. Meaning, again, that if a normal power plant operator goes belly up, you can just leave the power plants in place. Nobody has to pay anything. When the same happens for nuclear, taxpayers have to pay.
      - pyrale 4y ago
        The carbon released by your normal power plant doesn't vanish as the plant closes. And someone is definitely paying for that (e.g. [1]). That's more or less equivalent to the good old times of nuclear industry dumping their waste at sea. [1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/07/climate-change-is-making-some-homes-too-costly-to-insure.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/07/climate-change-is-making-som...