News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on U.S. Reenters the Nuclear Fuel Game. Parent comment

Re:U.S. Reenters the Nuclear Fuel Game by ViewTrick1002 on Wednesday November 15, 2023 @09:47AM (#38277123)
"Firmed" renewables are cheaper than nuclear today. [1] Any nuclear project started today will finish ~2040 and then not recoup the investment until ~2070. If nuclear is uncompetitive today, how do you think it will fare against 30 years of renewable development?

Lets also remove the Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act [2] with equivalents across the world so the nuclear industry has to bear the true insurance cost.

[1]: https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Reenters the Nuclear Fuel Game by pgeorgi on Wednesday November 15, 2023 @12:06PM (#38279145)
> so the nuclear industry has to bear the true insurance cost

How expensive is a resounding "No" by insurers?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Reenters the Nuclear Fuel Game by smolder on Wednesday November 15, 2023 @03:21PM (#38281912)
What exactly is made better by paying more to insurance cos? Beyond a point insurance is just a drain on productivity.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Reenters the Nuclear Fuel Game by belorn on Wednesday November 15, 2023 @06:02PM (#38283784)
Nuclear accidents, flooding and forest fires are three areas where insurance do not cover the cost. Fossil fuel usage are also exempted from paying insurance regarding climate change and health costs associated with pollution. Wind power are mostly exempted from paying damages when hurting endangered wildlife.

I would not be completely against demanding that all commercial activity in the energy sector must cover every negative effect on society and the environment. It would in effect ban all fossil fuel, nuclear, and hydro. Would be a fair price to pay for getting rid of fossil fuels.

[ Parent | on HN ]