3 ms·

Solar and Wind are cheaper unsubsidized. See page 17: https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/xemf

Solar and Wind are cheaper unsubsidized. See page 17: https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-... Also, nuclear gets subsidies. They are not on the hook for liability. Thanks to this policy, should a catastrophic accident happen at one of the 54 nuclear plants operating in the United States, the nuclear industry would be liable for the first $16.1 billion in damages and taxpayers would be on the hook to cover the remainder. The Fukushima nuclear disaster has already been reported to exceed $90 billion. The full value of the Price-Anderson nuclear subsidy is difficult to estimate, but if nuclear operators had to carry the full cost of insurance against a nuclear accident, the plants would most likely become uneconomic to build: https://environmentamerica.org/updates/feds-extend-nuclear-power-subsidy/ https://environmentamerica.org/updates/feds-extend-nuclear-p... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...

Herz 2y ago
Using LCOE to look at the price of renewables is quite funny. Also, this report for nuclear use as metric the most expensive reactor in US > Also, nuclear gets subsidies. They are not on the hook for liability. The International Renewable Energy Agency tracked some $634 billion in energy-sector subsidies in 2020, and found that around 70% were fossil fuel subsidies. About 20% went to renewable power generation, 6% to biofuels and just over 3% to nuclear. Thats about more than 120 billions every year. 87 bilions only in EU. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02847-2#:~:text=A%202020%20report,oil%2C%20he%20adds https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02847-2#:~:text=A.... In EU its way more than 20% (in 2022 more than 50%), nuclear something like 1%. > Thanks to this policy, should a catastrophic accident happen at one of the 54 nuclear plants operating in the United States, the nuclear industry would be liable for the first $16.1 billion in damages and taxpayers would be on the hook to cover the remainder. The Fukushima nuclear disaster has already been reported to exceed $90 billion. The full value of the Price-Anderson nuclear subsidy is difficult to estimate, but if nuclear operators had to carry the full cost of insurance against a nuclear accident, the plants would most likely become uneconomic to build: https://environmentamerica.org/updates/feds-extend-nuclear-p https://environmentamerica.org/updates/feds-extend-nuclear-p... And? Dams have been shown to be much more dangerous than nuclear power, but I don't see any such thing existing. Don't associate political choices to technologies. Either way, it's less than what renewables get every year, which says a lot about the public perception of the costs of nuclear and renewable. As for the Fukushima "disaster," I do not minimize the costs, simply comparing the nuclear power of 60 years ago with the nuclear power in the article is intellectually dishonest. And I don't understand in which timeline it should be considered as a valid argument to be against modern and new nuclear technologies.

Herz 2y ago

Using LCOE to look at the price of renewables is quite funny. Also, this report for nuclear use as metric the most expensive reactor in US > Also, nuclear gets subsidies. They are not on the hook for liability. The International Renewable Energy Agency tracked some $634 billion in energy-sector subsidies in 2020, and found that around 70% were fossil fuel subsidies. About 20% went to renewable power generation, 6% to biofuels and just over 3% to nuclear. Thats about more than 120 billions every year. 87 bilions only in EU. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02847-2#:~:text=A%202020%20report,oil%2C%20he%20adds https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02847-2#:~:text=A.... In EU its way more than 20% (in 2022 more than 50%), nuclear something like 1%. > Thanks to this policy, should a catastrophic accident happen at one of the 54 nuclear plants operating in the United States, the nuclear industry would be liable for the first $16.1 billion in damages and taxpayers would be on the hook to cover the remainder. The Fukushima nuclear disaster has already been reported to exceed $90 billion. The full value of the Price-Anderson nuclear subsidy is difficult to estimate, but if nuclear operators had to carry the full cost of insurance against a nuclear accident, the plants would most likely become uneconomic to build: https://environmentamerica.org/updates/feds-extend-nuclear-p https://environmentamerica.org/updates/feds-extend-nuclear-p... And? Dams have been shown to be much more dangerous than nuclear power, but I don't see any such thing existing. Don't associate political choices to technologies. Either way, it's less than what renewables get every year, which says a lot about the public perception of the costs of nuclear and renewable. As for the Fukushima "disaster," I do not minimize the costs, simply comparing the nuclear power of 60 years ago with the nuclear power in the article is intellectually dishonest. And I don't understand in which timeline it should be considered as a valid argument to be against modern and new nuclear technologies.