| >They have been profitable for decades. How can you know if they were profitable or not before you know the final costs? >> Why doesn't that count as being part of the decommissioning costs?
>Decomissioning a plant has two parts: dismantling, which is a one-time cost, and long-term storage, Certainly, but the yankee plant is currently housing the fuel in a short-term storage container on-site. So the dismantling part is not completed yet, and the costs are ongoing. It's not yet in the "long-term-storage" phase of operations, which btw also cost money. >Maybe future politicians will force people to recycle their solar panels at outrageous cost? The difference with nuclear compared to other sources is that the costs of nuclear __have__ to be handled. If an operator of a solar panel plant goes bankrupt, the state doesn't have to pay a cent since the plant simply stops costing money when it is shut down. That makes it much easier to estimate the costs. If an operator of a nuclear plant goes bankrupt however, the state simply has to cover all the costs to ensure proper handling of the fuel and waste. We have to date not managed to do so reliably anywhere in the world, so how can we claim to know the costs? |
It's hardly short term if it's been there for 26 years.
> It's not yet in the "long-term-storage" phase of operations
And, judging by the ongoing process, it's not close to be. For no technical reason, it's just politicians doing politician things.
So, the logical conclusion is that no one can predict what politicians could do. If they do this, what makes you think that they wouldn't pass a law forcing people to recycle current solar panels at an outrageous cost? You've been claiming that it's impossible to know anything about anything related to nuclear, but the same claims also hold for any other production source, since this kind of political decision is, essentially, arbitrary.
Welcome to the FUD, if you can do it, others can do it too.