Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
for several reasons:

  1. nuclear is a capital intensive technology, and is thus cheaper if financed at low rates over the very long term. Nobody can beat the State to do that

  2. nuclear does have residual risks  which will always be borne by the public - safety, cleanup in case of accident (as they are uninsurable) and long term waste management. One can argue that these costs are more or less measurable, but as they are always - always - for the State, it is only fair the public should get the upside of nuclear power in the form of State ownership of the assets and/or lower prices for electricity.

Wind power
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Jan 8th, 2012 at 09:08:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
  1. true of course, and I don't disagree. But in a regulated environment, solid private power companies get cheap enough rates as well so as to finance nukes in a reasonable way. This is not a hypothesis - it is the historical experience in eg Finland and Sweden.

  2. that argument also requires that airlines, chemical plants, hydro plants, natgas infrastructure and so on is owned by the state. Of course, the public does get the upside in the form of lower electricity prices as well, if the market is regulated. Which is more or less needed to make nuclear possible for private owners. Even if some exotic ways of financing are possible even in a deregulated market (plants owned directly by a consortium of big power consumers, Mankala model, and so on).

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Sun Jan 8th, 2012 at 09:33:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]