Skip to main content

View Diary: Hanford's Radwaste Tanks Leaking & Explosive, Waste Treament Plant Unsafe: Whistleblowers Vindicated (159 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Decommisioning costs are considered (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG

    when people do cost assessments. If you think that they aren't, then you are mistaken.

    Compared to the costs of climate change, the resources spent on nuclear are negligible.

    It's comparable to wind on a per kwh basis. Solar is more expensive.

    I installed solar on my house with ~50% tax incentives for state+federal, and still it wouldn't pay for itself if I didn't also get government subsidized renewable energy credits. Yeah, I'm sucking off the government teat to reduce my fossil fuel consumption. Yet apparently it's only bad when nuclear does it?

    •  It doesn't "pay for itself" because other (6+ / 0-)

      sources of electricity have 70 to 120 years of backed in subsidy.

      income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

      by JesseCW on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 02:38:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, it doesn't pay for itself (0+ / 0-)

        because electricity is cheap.

        But I'm not sure what your argument is. That nobody should have subsidies, and electricity should be 5 times the price, or that only energy sources you like should be subsidized.

        I'm merely pointing out that all energy is subsidized at some level, some more explicitly than others. Fossil fuels are subsidized heavily, not only in production, but also 'protection' from our wars, health impacts, and of course the costs from climate change.

        Against these costs, trying to call out the subsidies for any other energy source, whether nuclear or solar, is nitpicking.

        And let us not forget that with solar, for example, we are not even including the environmental costs associated with outsourcing production to China with their lax regulations. How much should we charge for that?

      •  Did you mention the millions needed for nuke (5+ / 0-)

        insurance? It's so expensive it has to be paid or subsidized by governments. Insurance is costly because the results of accidents can be dire, a meltdown for example.

        Higher incidents of leukemia in children living near nukes in Germany. Would any of its proponents build their homes in the shadow of a plant?  They emit radiation every day and the effects are cumulative.

    •  Only out to 50 years (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW

      the next hundred centuries, the costs are on the suckers that fell for the plutonium cartels's disinformation.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (132)
  • Community (53)
  • Baltimore (45)
  • Bernie Sanders (36)
  • Civil Rights (35)
  • Culture (25)
  • Freddie Gray (21)
  • Elections (20)
  • Racism (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Hillary Clinton (19)
  • Law (19)
  • Economy (18)
  • Labor (17)
  • Politics (16)
  • Rescued (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Texas (14)
  • Media (14)
  • Environment (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site