[tlocke]

Comparing electricity costs between countries probably says more about government subsidies than the underlying cost of generation. Nuclear fission is an expensive source of electricity (see the high subsidies for Hinckley C) and so I suspect France's nuclear power is heavily subsidised.

[throw0101c]

> Nuclear fission is an expensive source of electricity (see the high subsidies for Hinckley C) and so I suspect France's nuclear power is heavily subsidised.

There are no subsidies in Ontario, Canada, and nuclear is the second cheapest (CA$ 0.101/kHw) after hydro-electric (6.2¢/kWh); see Table 2:

* https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2023...

[tlocke]

For nuclear, the subsidies are often in insurance and decommissioning and long-term storage of waste.

So looking at insurance, it's impossible to fully insure a nuclear power station, and so the state effectively insures it.

With long term storage of waste, the material has to be securely stored for about 10,000 years. As far as I know, only Finland is doing this so far.

With decommissioning, it always costs more than is set aside, and so the taxpayer gets left to pick up the pieces eventually.

With your example of Ontario I don't know how these costs I've outlined will be handled, but if it's anything like the UK the costs will be pushed onto the taxpayer.

[throw0101c]

> With long term storage of waste, the material has to be securely stored for about 10,000 years. As far as I know, only Finland is doing this so far.

It has to be stored for 6-10 years for cooling after it is taken out of the reactor. Then after 200-300 years the only way it is dangerous is if you (a) eat it, or (b) grind it up and snort it like cocaine.

The '10,000 year stuff' is not very 'hot' and any radiation given off can be blocked by aluminium foil. The dangers over thousands of years is overblown:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2t2tYQsK94

> With your example of Ontario I don't know how these costs I've outlined will be handled, but if it's anything like the UK the costs will be pushed onto the taxpayer.

The generation companies will be handling nuclear waste in Canada:

> The Act required Canadian electricity generating companies which produce used nuclear fuel to establish a waste management organization to provide recommendations to the Government of Canada on the long-term management of used nuclear fuel. The legislation also required the waste owners to establish segregated trust funds to finance the long-term management of the used fuel.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Management_Organ...

[brnt]

You are right, but the same holds true for other sources: many externalize costs (e.g. CO2 emissions and thereby climate change, or glass fiber composite in windmills being notoriously hard to recycle).

It still may be an acceptable price, externalizing certain known or unknown costs to the state, but when it comes down to it, no source really does this well. That being hard to price is a good reason.