| Now you are changing the subject. You are inventing the term energy safety to try to have my eyes glaze over by having something in your view of the world only nuclear can solve. This is not true, the alternative to nuclear power is being built today without subsidies or government involvement. There is a transferring of the risk. For the alternative the government is not on the hook. I.e. there is no unrealized cost. We can put it into concrete terms: Who pays when something like Nukegate [1] or Hanhikivi [2] happens if the government finances the plant? The taxpayers. Who pays when Ørsted realizes that the contracts signed during ZIRP [3] no longer make business sense to pursue? Ørsted. If Ørsted were to go bankrupt due to the project, like Areva and Olkiluoto 3, who pays? The banks. The difference between the market rate and the government rate is who pays when the project goes belly up. Trying to fudge the numbers like you are doing is only a ploy to politically sell a project which does not economically make sense. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nukegate_scandal [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plant [3]: https://us.orsted.com/news-archive/2023/10/orsted-ceases-dev... |
I'll distill all those questions into one: who pays to make sure that despite all potential and real failures the venture is profitable? Taxpayers. That's why those rates are so high, you're paying upfront for that possibility. Getting all the downsides and zero upsides.
It's like getting extended warranty on a toaster or any item you can easily buy ten of. The expected value is strictly negative.
Dealing with insurance is not something government should be doing anytime; it's way too big for that.