Heavyweight physics prof weighs into climate/energy scrap

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

In nuclear, there isn't any major externalities to talk about, the whole process is being "priced" accordingly and can be read from balance sheets, whereas in other forms of generation there are lots of costs that are not incurred to their "rightful owners" and are thus omitted.

Safe long term storage of nuclear waste is priced into the cost of nuclear energy?

The risk of Chernobyl style disasters is priced into the cost of nuclear energy?

How?

[Andreas]

The Finns have priced in HLW long-term storage. Desasters may or may not be priced in, depending on insurance arrangements and caps.

Honestly, I do not think that a Chernobyl type desaster is a big risk at any reasonably-run nuclear station.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

This may seem crazy, but maybe the reason why there was a push for nuclear energy was because of the need for weapons materials during the cold war.

Now, the only possible way for the nuclear companies to exist is to take money from taxpayers. The bankers from London and New York won't touch nuclear for good reasons.

Bankers only touch renewables because there is tax-payers money thrown at them. The only reason a wind or solar industry exists on any meaningful scale are government subsidies, and the effect on investment is most visible in the USA.

Bankers don't touch coal these days either. Large-scale utility energy projects are nowadays often balance-sheet financed, either directly, or by raising money against the balance-sheet, as opposed to against the project.

In the US nuclear was created not so much by tax handouts but by elected regulatory commissioners allowing the investment money to be clawed back from rate-payers at no risk and a reasonable return. The situation was similar in many European countries.

All the best

Andreas

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

The Finns have priced in HLW long-term storage.

Andreas

Interesting, have to read into that.

btw , thx for the spanish wind link

[Andreas]

The Finns use a ring-fenced fund to finance storage. If you are creating nuclear waste, you have to pony up and pay into it. The fund is independently managed from the state budget and the nuclear industry. Disposal cost are estimated at 5-10% of total cost of Finnish nuclear electricity.

All the best

Andreas

[SSgt Viljuri]

Desasters may or may not be priced in, depending on insurance arrangements and caps.

Indeed, in the US insurance costs are (were) seen as prohibitive.

Despite of what ever legislative framework is in use country by country basis, the main issue is related to how liability for damages is implemented. In the US, there's such things as punitive damages, i.e. any damages incurred are overcompensated.

This makes funding and covering them burdensome for energy companies as far as common law countries are concerned.

In Finland we have a proactive public-private partnership model in place, establishing funds and alike, even though actual damages as such are not capped in any way (unlike what the link says, in practice it refers to third party liabilities, which are capped to 700 million Euro, meaning anything going above that is covered by the other acts).