Mod grandparent (fadir) way up (interesting => insightful).
You know, no matter how many times you lie about it, you're not going to change what's true. Not only is it not true that the "follow up costs" are ignored, but they're actually overestimated due to the current policy of not reprocessing fuel. Change that, and electricity becomes even cheaper than the current calculations show.
You know, one of the reasons that so many people still believe that these follow up costs are negligible, is that the nuclear lobby is probably globally the most powerful lobby in existence, and is therefore very successful in FUD'ing the cost of renewable energy (not limited to solar power) and downplaying the billions of tax-$€ that go into subsidising, cleaning up, waste storage/dumping, funding research, etc. of nuclear energy.
And the nice "carrot on a stick" of the fast breeder reactor, that in theory should provide (the only) "sustainable" form of nuclear energy (when unrealistically neglecting any environmental and safety concerns, that is), has in spite of more than half a century development never become even close to commercially viable, although the worldwide public funds that has subsidised this and other more sustainable nuclear technology is many many many orders of magnitude larger than the development funds that has been spent on renewable energy cumulatively.
In this sense, you cannot get more fair and transparent that the concept of FIT (Feed In Tariffs) such as in Germany for wind energy, where a stable economic base for renewable electricity is provided to make investments viable, but other than that the competitive market works (i.e. no hidden subsidies). By contrast, unhide all the hidden cost of nuclear electricity production technology (which is non-trivial unfortunately) and the comparison will turn out quite different.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, no matter how many times you lie about it, you're not going to change what's true. Not only is it not true that the "follow up costs" are ignored, but they're actually overestimated due to the current policy of not reprocessing fuel. Change that, and electricity becomes even cheaper than the current calculations show.
You know, one of the reasons that so many people still believe that these follow up costs are negligible, is that the nuclear lobby is probably globally the most powerful lobby in existence, and is therefore very successful in FUD'ing the cost of renewable energy (not limited to solar power) and downplaying the billions of tax-$€ that go into subsidising, cleaning up, waste storage/dumping, funding research, etc. of nuclear energy.
And the nice "carrot on a stick" of the fast breeder reactor, that in theory should provide (the only) "sustainable" form of nuclear energy (when unrealistically neglecting any environmental and safety concerns, that is), has in spite of more than half a century development never become even close to commercially viable, although the worldwide public funds that has subsidised this and other more sustainable nuclear technology is many many many orders of magnitude larger than the development funds that has been spent on renewable energy cumulatively.
In this sense, you cannot get more fair and transparent that the concept of FIT (Feed In Tariffs) such as in Germany for wind energy, where a stable economic base for renewable electricity is provided to make investments viable, but other than that the competitive market works (i.e. no hidden subsidies). By contrast, unhide all the hidden cost of nuclear electricity production technology (which is non-trivial unfortunately) and the comparison will turn out quite different.