3 ms·

Add the cost of this kind of storage facilities to the cost of nuclear energy. Of course oil, coal, solar, idro, etc have their own costs for cleaning up the p

Add the cost of this kind of storage facilities to the cost of nuclear energy. Of course oil, coal, solar, idro, etc have their own costs for cleaning up the places.

jabl 3y ago
> Add the cost of this kind of storage facilities to the cost of nuclear energy. In Finland, and I believe many other countries as well, there is a special tax on nuclear power plants whose proceeds go into a fund for handling the end of life costs, like building this repository. > Of course oil, coal, solar, idro, etc have their own costs for cleaning up the places. Indeed, all energy generation should have similar schemese like nuclear to handle end of life cleanup costs. Unfortunately it seems nuclear is fairly unique in actually having it.
- reitanqild 3y ago
  In Norway people have been paying "environmental taxes" since the eighties at least. The only problem is that these are not pooled up towards fixing environmental issues but used as part of the general budget by whoever holds the government at any time. Which in turn annoys even people like me who think it is a good idea to tax it because: 1. not enough gets done to combat environmental damage 2. it gives politicians an incentive to keep increasing these taxes to afford other projects they want I seriously wish it was like water and sewer and waste taxes around here: the municipality can increase these as needed but are not allowed to make a profit from them so if money is saved then the next years these taxes are lowered. (Or the year after, whenever the calculations are finished.)
mcfedr 3y ago
Who do you think is paying for it?
lionkor 3y ago
It would be great if all the waste generated by e.g. burning coal would be put in big barrels and labelled toxic and dangerous (because it is) - people would get a much better understanding of why nuclear isnt that bad in comparison
- wiseowise 3y ago
  It isn’t that bad if you’re far away from consequences.
- pjc50 3y ago
  Some of it is even radioactive! (thorium ash)
sofixa 3y ago
> Add the cost of this kind of storage facilities to the cost of nuclear energy. It's factored in, and especially on new projects such as Hinkley Point C it'd actually a pretty sizable chunk of the budget, and increases the price of the electricity produced even more because the timeline is quite short (the goal is to reimburse the construction costs within 20-25 years, meanwhile the power plant can operate for 50-70 years with some maintenance; that's what happens when you add a commercial profit incentive to such long term projects that simply shouldn't have one).
askvictor 3y ago
Whereas in the US, this cost was just ignored and handed down as a precious gift to future generations. Other energy systems have their clean up costs too, but they don't need to consider a 100,000 year time scale, so are much, much cheaper.

Add the cost of this kind of storage facilities to the cost of nuclear energy. Of course oil, coal, solar, idro, etc have their own costs for cleaning up the places.

jabl 3y ago

> Add the cost of this kind of storage facilities to the cost of nuclear energy. In Finland, and I believe many other countries as well, there is a special tax on nuclear power plants whose proceeds go into a fund for handling the end of life costs, like building this repository. > Of course oil, coal, solar, idro, etc have their own costs for cleaning up the places. Indeed, all energy generation should have similar schemese like nuclear to handle end of life cleanup costs. Unfortunately it seems nuclear is fairly unique in actually having it.

reitanqild 3y ago
In Norway people have been paying "environmental taxes" since the eighties at least. The only problem is that these are not pooled up towards fixing environmental issues but used as part of the general budget by whoever holds the government at any time. Which in turn annoys even people like me who think it is a good idea to tax it because: 1. not enough gets done to combat environmental damage 2. it gives politicians an incentive to keep increasing these taxes to afford other projects they want I seriously wish it was like water and sewer and waste taxes around here: the municipality can increase these as needed but are not allowed to make a profit from them so if money is saved then the next years these taxes are lowered. (Or the year after, whenever the calculations are finished.)

mcfedr 3y ago

Who do you think is paying for it?

lionkor 3y ago

It would be great if all the waste generated by e.g. burning coal would be put in big barrels and labelled toxic and dangerous (because it is) - people would get a much better understanding of why nuclear isnt that bad in comparison

wiseowise 3y ago
It isn’t that bad if you’re far away from consequences.
pjc50 3y ago
Some of it is even radioactive! (thorium ash)

sofixa 3y ago

> Add the cost of this kind of storage facilities to the cost of nuclear energy. It's factored in, and especially on new projects such as Hinkley Point C it'd actually a pretty sizable chunk of the budget, and increases the price of the electricity produced even more because the timeline is quite short (the goal is to reimburse the construction costs within 20-25 years, meanwhile the power plant can operate for 50-70 years with some maintenance; that's what happens when you add a commercial profit incentive to such long term projects that simply shouldn't have one).

askvictor 3y ago

Whereas in the US, this cost was just ignored and handed down as a precious gift to future generations. Other energy systems have their clean up costs too, but they don't need to consider a 100,000 year time scale, so are much, much cheaper.