Using LCOE to look at the price of renewables is quite funny. Also, this report for nuclear use as metric the most expensive reactor in US
> Also, nuclear gets subsidies. They are not on the hook for liability.
The International Renewable Energy Agency tracked some $634 billion in energy-sector subsidies in 2020, and found that around 70% were fossil fuel subsidies. About 20% went to renewable power generation, 6% to biofuels and just over 3% to nuclear.
Thats about more than 120 billions every year. 87 bilions only in EU.
In EU its way more than 20% (in 2022 more than 50%), nuclear something like 1%.
> Thanks to this policy, should a catastrophic accident happen at one of the 54 nuclear plants operating in the United States, the nuclear industry would be liable for the first $16.1 billion in damages and taxpayers would be on the hook to cover the remainder. The Fukushima nuclear disaster has already been reported to exceed $90 billion. The full value of the Price-Anderson nuclear subsidy is difficult to estimate, but if nuclear operators had to carry the full cost of insurance against a nuclear accident, the plants would most likely become uneconomic to build: https://environmentamerica.org/updates/feds-extend-nuclear-p...
And? Dams have been shown to be much more dangerous than nuclear power, but I don't see any such thing existing. Don't associate political choices to technologies.
Either way, it's less than what renewables get every year, which says a lot about the public perception of the costs of nuclear and renewable.
As for the Fukushima "disaster," I do not minimize the costs, simply comparing the nuclear power of 60 years ago with the nuclear power in the article is intellectually dishonest. And I don't understand in which timeline it should be considered as a valid argument to be against modern and new nuclear technologies.
> Also, nuclear gets subsidies. They are not on the hook for liability. The International Renewable Energy Agency tracked some $634 billion in energy-sector subsidies in 2020, and found that around 70% were fossil fuel subsidies. About 20% went to renewable power generation, 6% to biofuels and just over 3% to nuclear.
Thats about more than 120 billions every year. 87 bilions only in EU.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02847-2#:~:text=A....
In EU its way more than 20% (in 2022 more than 50%), nuclear something like 1%.
> Thanks to this policy, should a catastrophic accident happen at one of the 54 nuclear plants operating in the United States, the nuclear industry would be liable for the first $16.1 billion in damages and taxpayers would be on the hook to cover the remainder. The Fukushima nuclear disaster has already been reported to exceed $90 billion. The full value of the Price-Anderson nuclear subsidy is difficult to estimate, but if nuclear operators had to carry the full cost of insurance against a nuclear accident, the plants would most likely become uneconomic to build: https://environmentamerica.org/updates/feds-extend-nuclear-p...
And? Dams have been shown to be much more dangerous than nuclear power, but I don't see any such thing existing. Don't associate political choices to technologies.
Either way, it's less than what renewables get every year, which says a lot about the public perception of the costs of nuclear and renewable.
As for the Fukushima "disaster," I do not minimize the costs, simply comparing the nuclear power of 60 years ago with the nuclear power in the article is intellectually dishonest. And I don't understand in which timeline it should be considered as a valid argument to be against modern and new nuclear technologies.