[ncmncm]

All. Even nominally commercial ones get a whopping disaster liability subsidy, and decommissioning cost is omitted from the price, but charged to ratepayers on top of whatever actual power they are also paying for.

It will cost at least a $billion to take apart and dispose of Indian Point, shut down recently because it was leaking radioactive stuff into the Hudson.

[john567]

See, now I know you're just lying because the equation isn't at all the same across all countries. Maybe you don't like nuclear and that's fine but you don't have to lie about it.

[pfdietz]

It remains the case that NPPs have never, anywhere, been built into a competitive market. They are only built when customers can be forced to pay for them.

[john567]

So, what's your argument? That people won't buy nuclear energy on an open market or that an open market for nuclear energy doesn't exist?

In Sweden, where I live, about half of our electricity is from nuclear. It's built and operated by a state owned entity called Vattenfall and while they currently have a politically appointed board that is against nuclear they operate (for profit) all of our nuclear reactors. The only reason we don't build more is because they've made it practically impossible (not illegal) to expand nuclear energy through various political motivated decisions. Sweden had a referendum on the continuation of nuclear energy after the Chernobyl accident, we did vote, though by a narrow margin to transition away from nuclear. However, this past winter we had huge supply issues and people ended up having to pay 4x for electricity due to the premature shutdown of nuclear (meanwhile we had to power up oil and gas burning to compensate). Right now, most people in Sweden are of the opinion that we should keep our nuclear reactors. I, together with several others would like to us to expand our energy production from nuclear to prevent a reliance on oil and gas.

[ncmncm]

> through various political motivated decisions

Politics is how policy is determined. People have tried other ways. Sometimes they worked. For a while.

Diverting money from building out renewables (and transmission lines) to build nukes ensures, at minimum, another decade of increasing reliance on oil and gas, and then paying more for power than you would have for renewables.

[john567]

Politics aimed at making a specific type of energy unprofitable by taxing it to death is not. It's activism.

Sweden cannot depend on solar alone, we have plenty of hydro in the northern parts of the country and wind doesn't work during winter. Wind also kills birds and insects, en masse.

People have an irrational fear towards nuclear. Fact is, very few people have died because of nuclear energy. If you compare deaths vs produced watts, nuclear is the single safest energy source by several orders of magnitudes.

Also, I don't know if that's a typo or a misunderstanding but we are not talking about nuclear weapons, i.e. nukes we are talking about thermonuclear energy production. These are two different things altogether.