7 ms·

All while the government still subsidizes the accident insurance. Lets remove that as well! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Indust

All while the government still subsidizes the accident insurance. Lets remove that as well! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear... Compare the $15 billion funded by the industry with Fukushima looking to cost at least $150 billion to clean up.

epups 3y ago
The clean up was absolutely over the top and not guided by objective measures. The government effectively already absorbs all costs involving the externalities of coal, oil and other dirty sources of energy, which add up to way more than 150 billion.
- Gwypaas 3y ago
  Great that the alternative in 2023 in renewables then! You're arguing a strawman comparing nuclear to fossil fuels.
  - concordDance 3y ago
    Last I checked switching to pure renewables would triple electricity costs due to storage needs. You'd be way better off spending that money on nuclear (including accident cleanup) and healthcare.
    - Gwypaas 3y ago
      Given that nuclear on marginal price markets would require 5-8x the costs from renewables that is a win? Stop living in the 70s.
      - concordDance 3y ago
        Actually model it. Go look at gridwatch and use the graphs to calculate total storage needs if using a wind-solar mix, then check out the US department of energy 2019 report on energy storage solution characteristics. Calculated total cost when I did it would have tripled UK electricity prices. Pure French nuclear, on the other hand, resulted in a mere 30% increase in electricity prices.
        Gwypaas 3y ago
        French existing nuclear paid for completely opaquely to support the military nuclear program. Now input Flamanville 3 costs for your buildout. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
        concordDance 3y ago
        Yes, over regulation leads to massively spiraling costs as delays lead to financing issues (both interest and uncertainty), knowledge loss, project management timing issues, etc etc And yet even with that you're getting 400 billion kWh over its 40 year lifespan for €13 billion construction costs (multiply by 1.5 for lifetime costs), for electricity production price of €0.05 per kWh. Which is honestly decent. Btw: did you actually do the calculation before posting?
        Gwypaas 3y ago
        Hahahahaha. Yeah, a 20 year project + 40 year lifespan and you get a "decent" number. You are guessing about 2083. Do you even listen to yourself?
        concordDance 3y ago
        Your reply seems to just be empty mockery unworthy of you. Do you dispute the figures I gave? Do you think the price given makes nuclear nonviable?
  - epups 3y ago
    Renewables are great but they don't provide a good base capacity capability. That means you still need hydro, geothermal (both limited), coal, gas, oil or nuclear in your grid, with enough capacity to provide energy in case it's not sunny or windy. Large scale storage using batteries is simply not feasible at this point, which is why nuclear is still a good bridge technology until we figure that out. Unfortunately your misconception is very popular, and I think a large part of why a lot of people don't support nuclear.
    - Gwypaas 3y ago
      Of course they do. > Indian developer secures 300 MW renewables project with $0.050/kWh bid https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/05/19/indian-developer-secures-300-mw-renewables-project-with-0-050-kwh-bid/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/05/19/indian-developer-secu... Nuclear costs $0.12 - $0.20/kWh in comparison. https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/ https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e...
      - epups 3y ago
        Sorry but your source is bad - no details whatsoever about which storage solution they are aiming for. Regardless, we know for a fact that not a single country has storage capabilities for even 1% of their energy needs. Lots of initiatives want to change that, such as the one you posted, but there is absolutely no large scale solution for this issue at all. Once you accept that fact, you realize renewables are not a replacement for nuclear at this point.
      - concordDance 3y ago
        I greatly appreciate your second link and will have a look at it later. I'm very curious how they got such a high figure for the nuclear cost given a look at even more expensive modern nuclear reactors costs gives a number of around $0.07/kWh.
        Gwypaas 3y ago
        The manufacturers say they are cheap, well 0.07/kWh is super expensive, but in your reality yes, cheap, before starting to build. Then reality hits. https://www.wired.com/story/the-dream-of-mini-nuclear-plants-hangs-in-the-balance/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-dream-of-mini-nuclear-plants...
koheripbal 3y ago
The government subsidizes all major accident insurance across all industries. Nuclear should not be different.
- Gwypaas 3y ago
  Why do it when the alternative, renewables, barely have any risks for third parties?
  - belorn 3y ago
    Go ahead as long you don't use hydro or fossil fuels to fill in demand when renewables are not producing. This is one of those areas where an technology neutral law should be applied. Rather than have the government pay for insurance, move that to a tax on the consumer based on how much energy is consumed and the cost of accidents and environmental impact. For energy produced by fossil fuels that would be any costs associated with global warming (including any accidents and extreme weather), for hydro it would be flooding, and for nuclear it would be nuclear accidents. Base the insurance cost on the historical accident rate and the predicted rate in the future. That would make renewable energy even cheaper in optimal weather, energy produced from fossil fuel a few order of magnitudes more expensive for every watt consumed, and nuclear and hydro would increase by a modest sum.
peterfirefly 3y ago
And how much of that is utterly unnecessary? The evacuation was also costly -- and unnecessary...
- geysersam 3y ago
  Yes but was that known beforehand?
- Zigurd 3y ago
  If you can't insure something, that's a pretty strong market signal.
- concordDance 3y ago
  Judging by the radiation maps? Over 90% is cost ineffective.

epups 3y ago

The clean up was absolutely over the top and not guided by objective measures. The government effectively already absorbs all costs involving the externalities of coal, oil and other dirty sources of energy, which add up to way more than 150 billion.

Gwypaas 3y ago
Great that the alternative in 2023 in renewables then! You're arguing a strawman comparing nuclear to fossil fuels.
- concordDance 3y ago
  Last I checked switching to pure renewables would triple electricity costs due to storage needs. You'd be way better off spending that money on nuclear (including accident cleanup) and healthcare.
  - Gwypaas 3y ago
    Given that nuclear on marginal price markets would require 5-8x the costs from renewables that is a win? Stop living in the 70s.
    - concordDance 3y ago
      Actually model it. Go look at gridwatch and use the graphs to calculate total storage needs if using a wind-solar mix, then check out the US department of energy 2019 report on energy storage solution characteristics. Calculated total cost when I did it would have tripled UK electricity prices. Pure French nuclear, on the other hand, resulted in a mere 30% increase in electricity prices.
      - Gwypaas 3y ago
        French existing nuclear paid for completely opaquely to support the military nuclear program. Now input Flamanville 3 costs for your buildout. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
        concordDance 3y ago
        Yes, over regulation leads to massively spiraling costs as delays lead to financing issues (both interest and uncertainty), knowledge loss, project management timing issues, etc etc And yet even with that you're getting 400 billion kWh over its 40 year lifespan for €13 billion construction costs (multiply by 1.5 for lifetime costs), for electricity production price of €0.05 per kWh. Which is honestly decent. Btw: did you actually do the calculation before posting?
        Gwypaas 3y ago
        Hahahahaha. Yeah, a 20 year project + 40 year lifespan and you get a "decent" number. You are guessing about 2083. Do you even listen to yourself?
        concordDance 3y ago
        Your reply seems to just be empty mockery unworthy of you. Do you dispute the figures I gave? Do you think the price given makes nuclear nonviable?
- epups 3y ago
  Renewables are great but they don't provide a good base capacity capability. That means you still need hydro, geothermal (both limited), coal, gas, oil or nuclear in your grid, with enough capacity to provide energy in case it's not sunny or windy. Large scale storage using batteries is simply not feasible at this point, which is why nuclear is still a good bridge technology until we figure that out. Unfortunately your misconception is very popular, and I think a large part of why a lot of people don't support nuclear.
  - Gwypaas 3y ago
    Of course they do. > Indian developer secures 300 MW renewables project with $0.050/kWh bid https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/05/19/indian-developer-secures-300-mw-renewables-project-with-0-050-kwh-bid/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/05/19/indian-developer-secu... Nuclear costs $0.12 - $0.20/kWh in comparison. https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/ https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e...
    - epups 3y ago
      Sorry but your source is bad - no details whatsoever about which storage solution they are aiming for. Regardless, we know for a fact that not a single country has storage capabilities for even 1% of their energy needs. Lots of initiatives want to change that, such as the one you posted, but there is absolutely no large scale solution for this issue at all. Once you accept that fact, you realize renewables are not a replacement for nuclear at this point.
    - concordDance 3y ago
      I greatly appreciate your second link and will have a look at it later. I'm very curious how they got such a high figure for the nuclear cost given a look at even more expensive modern nuclear reactors costs gives a number of around $0.07/kWh.
      - Gwypaas 3y ago
        The manufacturers say they are cheap, well 0.07/kWh is super expensive, but in your reality yes, cheap, before starting to build. Then reality hits. https://www.wired.com/story/the-dream-of-mini-nuclear-plants-hangs-in-the-balance/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-dream-of-mini-nuclear-plants...

koheripbal 3y ago

The government subsidizes all major accident insurance across all industries. Nuclear should not be different.

Gwypaas 3y ago
Why do it when the alternative, renewables, barely have any risks for third parties?
- belorn 3y ago
  Go ahead as long you don't use hydro or fossil fuels to fill in demand when renewables are not producing. This is one of those areas where an technology neutral law should be applied. Rather than have the government pay for insurance, move that to a tax on the consumer based on how much energy is consumed and the cost of accidents and environmental impact. For energy produced by fossil fuels that would be any costs associated with global warming (including any accidents and extreme weather), for hydro it would be flooding, and for nuclear it would be nuclear accidents. Base the insurance cost on the historical accident rate and the predicted rate in the future. That would make renewable energy even cheaper in optimal weather, energy produced from fossil fuel a few order of magnitudes more expensive for every watt consumed, and nuclear and hydro would increase by a modest sum.

peterfirefly 3y ago

And how much of that is utterly unnecessary? The evacuation was also costly -- and unnecessary...

geysersam 3y ago
Yes but was that known beforehand?
Zigurd 3y ago
If you can't insure something, that's a pretty strong market signal.
concordDance 3y ago
Judging by the radiation maps? Over 90% is cost ineffective.