Comments on: Well, yes, of course

By: gene berman

gene berman — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:07:26 +0000

I’m going back to discussion of the matter some 50 years ago or so. I seem to remember it being maintained (by the nuclear industry) and hardly challenged by other types of power providers that nuclear was actually cheaper than fossil fuel methods if the presumed “costs” did not have to include those of insurance against catastrophe.
I believe the first plants went in with some kind of “cap” or limit on the potential liabilities of the nukes but (I would think) that the good record over the years would cause that figure
(liability) to be substantially less now than then.

Is that incorrect?

By: dearieme

dearieme — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:56:55 +0000

No, Brian. The chief difference is that nuclear power reliably produces electricity while renewables occasionally produce some electricity

By: Brian, follower of Deornoth

Brian, follower of Deornoth — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:34:07 +0000

Both renewables and nuclear cost a lot of money. The chief difference is that nuclear power occasionally produces some electricity.

By: Serf

Serf — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:21:58 +0000

The answer to that question is deliberately obscured. The government tries to hide the subsidy given to renewables by using mandates.

Moreover, nobody is really sure yet what the cost of new nukes will be.