Re:Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy
by pydry on Sunday July 10, 2022 @05:07AM
(#32043016)
High end figures are 1 trillion. Those are pushing it a bit.
It's nowhere near as low as 200 billion.
Either way while the industry refuses to fully pay for its own risks or acknowledge that it does so its claims of safety via public relations channels are sounding more than a little disingenuous.
Re:Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy
by hnaccount_rng on Thursday July 07, 2022 @06:10PM
(#32020215)
So you exceeded the liability cap by a factor of 100, rather than 400... I'm sure there is a person for which a 99% vs a 99.75% payment by the state makes a difference. But ...
Re:Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy
by Manuel_D on Saturday July 09, 2022 @03:05PM
(#32038261)
By comparison, what are the costs inflicted by climate change?
Re:Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy
by pydry on Sunday July 10, 2022 @05:28AM
(#32043132)
By comparison why dont solar, wind and pumped storage warrant such extreme and lavish taxpayer funded subsidies?
Re:Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy
by Manuel_D on Monday July 11, 2022 @07:34PM
(#32063586)
Nuclear receives a fraction of the subsidies that renewables do: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/2016_Ene...
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United...
And remember, "renewable" energy is really natural gas supplemented by wind and solar. There's no plan for a 100% renewable grid until some massive breakthrough in energy storage happens.
Note, this is a figure cited by opposition politicians. Nowhere near this much money has actually been spent.
The estimate from the government is a bit under $200 billion, and that includes not just cleanup but also resettling people and continued monitoring of the reactor: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#:....