Reply #2: Why do you spread false information?

[kristopher]

On another thread you just bemoan someone doing exactly what you are now engaged in doing - spreading false information.

Union of Concerned Scientists on Nuclear Fission subsidies. The PAA has capped the nuclear industry’s liability for third-party damage to people and property for more 50 years, so let's look at just the PAA act in the text from the report. The graph shows your comments about current subsidies to be wrong.

D. Shifting Security and Accident Risks to the Public (Security and Risk Management)

...Nuclear power has two additional attributes that make it unattractive to investors. First, the period of risk exposure lasts too long. In most other sectors of the economy, the majority of the risks that investors take on last only several years, or a few decades at most. By contrast, nuclear operations span many decades—longer even than coal plants once post-closure periods prior to decommissioning are included. In par- ticular, highly radioactive and extremely long- lived wastes are not only risky but also require oversight for centuries.

Second, a single negative event can wipe out decades of gains. Although the risk of nuclear acci- dents in the United States is considered quite low, it is not zero.6 Plausible accident scenarios generate catastrophic damages, with corresponding levels of financial loss. This characteristic creates a large dis- connect between private interests (which highlight an absence of catastrophic damages thus far) and public interests (which must consider the damage that would be caused in the case of even a moderate accident, as well as the inadequacy of financial assurance mechanisms or insurance-related price signals to address the challenge).

Unlike car accidents, where one event generally has no impact on the perceived risk to unrelated drivers or auto companies, risks in the nuclear sector are systemic. An accident anywhere in the world will cause politicians and plant neighbors everywhere to reassess the risks they face and question whether the oversight and financial assurance are sufficient. Generally, the cost implications of such inquiries will be negative for reactor owners.

All of these factors, in combination with a poor track record of financial performance on new plant construction, have led investors in nuclear power to demand much higher rates of return, to shift the risks to other parties, or to steer clear of the nuclear power sector entirely. Risks are real, and if they were visibly integrated into the nuclear cost structure, the resulting price signals would guide energy investment toward technologies that have more predictable and lower risk profiles.

Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies
Doug Koplow, Earth Track, Inc.
Union of Concerned Scientists February 2011
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf

Also see Koplow's presentation here: http://www.unep.ch/etb/events/Energy%20Subsidies%20presentations/Nuclear%20Subsidies%20v2_Koplow.pdf