3 ms·

You forgot to include the costs of insurance, disposal of waste and dismanteling the nuclear plants after usage. If you include those, the numbers for nuclear a

You forgot to include the costs of insurance, disposal of waste and dismanteling the nuclear plants after usage. If you include those, the numbers for nuclear are much less impressive.

Lazare 13y ago
Actually, I said something about "Even with operating and decommissioning costs", so I hardly "forgot" them, I just didn't bother digging them up. And solar has some ongoing costs too, including for dismantling the panels at end of life, repairing storm damage, etc., etc. And if you want to be picky, the best data we have says that, even if you include all the costs of nuclear, it's still much cheaper than the best case for solar (and the suggestion of "a solar panel on every roof" isn't the best case for solar). For more estimates than you can shake a stick at (although they all broadly agree) see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
- jsilence 13y ago
  At least here in Germany there is no insurance for the nuclear plants. Risk is covered by the public, while the profits flow into a private company. Someone calculated, that if the plants were insured, the nuclear kWh would cost more than 60ct (normal consumer price right now about 25ct). But of course the risk and the damage are very vey hard to calculate, as we can see right now, live and in colour in Japan at the Fukushima plant. And that is the reason why no insurance company would ever offer an insurance for a nuclear plant. To me it is beyond comprehension why while looking at the horrendous desaster over there, people are still suggesting nuclear power as a safe, clean and cheap alternative. It obviously is not.
  - Lazare 13y ago
    Uh.... Actually the risk and potential damage of nuclear is very easy to calculate. "Extremely low." And that's counting Fukushima, because the alternatives are all much, much more dangerous. We're talking about a technology which, in terms of deaths per TWh of installed capacity, is ten times safer than rooftop solar. Yes, it's safe, yes, it's clean, and our best estimates of the entire costs, including subsidies, say it's significantly cheaper than other clean options. What's beyond comprehension to me is why people refuse to look at what's truly happening in Japan, and somehow think that it does something other than prove nuclears potential. And it's trivial to show that more people will die in Japan due to their switch from nuclear power than will ever die from Fukushima. That's the real horrendous "desaster". In the real world, nuclear is quite clean, extremely safe, and moderately cheap. That's cold, objective fact.

You forgot to include the costs of insurance, disposal of waste and dismanteling the nuclear plants after usage. If you include those, the numbers for nuclear are much less impressive.

Lazare 13y ago

Actually, I said something about "Even with operating and decommissioning costs", so I hardly "forgot" them, I just didn't bother digging them up. And solar has some ongoing costs too, including for dismantling the panels at end of life, repairing storm damage, etc., etc. And if you want to be picky, the best data we have says that, even if you include all the costs of nuclear, it's still much cheaper than the best case for solar (and the suggestion of "a solar panel on every roof" isn't the best case for solar). For more estimates than you can shake a stick at (although they all broadly agree) see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

jsilence 13y ago
At least here in Germany there is no insurance for the nuclear plants. Risk is covered by the public, while the profits flow into a private company. Someone calculated, that if the plants were insured, the nuclear kWh would cost more than 60ct (normal consumer price right now about 25ct). But of course the risk and the damage are very vey hard to calculate, as we can see right now, live and in colour in Japan at the Fukushima plant. And that is the reason why no insurance company would ever offer an insurance for a nuclear plant. To me it is beyond comprehension why while looking at the horrendous desaster over there, people are still suggesting nuclear power as a safe, clean and cheap alternative. It obviously is not.
- Lazare 13y ago
  Uh.... Actually the risk and potential damage of nuclear is very easy to calculate. "Extremely low." And that's counting Fukushima, because the alternatives are all much, much more dangerous. We're talking about a technology which, in terms of deaths per TWh of installed capacity, is ten times safer than rooftop solar. Yes, it's safe, yes, it's clean, and our best estimates of the entire costs, including subsidies, say it's significantly cheaper than other clean options. What's beyond comprehension to me is why people refuse to look at what's truly happening in Japan, and somehow think that it does something other than prove nuclears potential. And it's trivial to show that more people will die in Japan due to their switch from nuclear power than will ever die from Fukushima. That's the real horrendous "desaster". In the real world, nuclear is quite clean, extremely safe, and moderately cheap. That's cold, objective fact.