Yeah, good points all. The implicit insurance subsidy for Nuclear is pretty massive.
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Blaze Spinnaker <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> We need to be installing these solar panels without subsidies (and >> including all install costs, labor etc) and still paying less than general >> utility fees over 10 years or so. >> > > I would agree to the no subsidy plan, but only after we level the playing > field: > > 1. We stop subsidizing coal, oil and nuclear power. Oil subsidies should > include a large fraction of the cost of wars in the middle east. > > 2. We start reimbursing the families of people disabled and killed by coal > smoke particulates. I would say $1 million per death, and $100,000 for each > disabled person. That would add about $30 billion to the cost of coal-fired > electricity. Right now the power companies pay nothing to the victims. They > literally get away with murder. > > 3. We factor in the likely future cost of global warming, to start paying > it down now. That is likely to be trillions per year. A modest $100 billion > surcharge on gas and coal would begin to address it. > > 4. We repeal the Price Anderson act. That means nuclear plants would have > to shop for accident insurance. Under this act, they are protected against > lawsuits. Uncle Sam pays the victims of a nuclear disaster. Removing this > protection will probably make nuclear power uninsurable and untenable. It > will certainly make it far more expensive than the alternatives, given the > accidents at TMI and Fukushima. > > After we implement these reforms, I am confident that wind and solar will > be cheaper by far than these other energy sources, and will need no > subsidies. In short, we should let the free market work its magic. > > There is no chance these policies will be implemented. Conservatives would > fight them tooth and nail. > > - Jed > >
