If we take one example I gave, there is $0 in the cost a taxi ride provisioned to pay for insurance losses related to climate change, current or future.
>If we take one example I gave, there is $0 in the cost a taxi ride provisioned to pay for insurance losses related to climate change, current or future.
That is not the same definition. To continue the metaphor, I'm talking only about the money you have to pay to the taxi driver according to the meter. :)
Nobody knows how to turn off the meter on a "nuclear taxi". Someone has to pay it even after the taxi has been demolished, the driver has retired, and the passenger is dead.
> Nobody knows how to turn off the meter on a "nuclear taxi". Someone has to pay it even after the taxi has been demolished, the driver has retired, and the passenger is dead.
The same is true for a regular taxi. No one is going to put carbon back into the ground when you kick the bucket, and no one can put a price on the actual cost.
No, for "regular taxis" you just stop paying after you have closed the plant.
Meaning, again, that if a normal power plant operator goes belly up, you can just leave the power plants in place. Nobody has to pay anything. When the same happens for nuclear, taxpayers have to pay.
The carbon released by your normal power plant doesn't vanish as the plant closes. And someone is definitely paying for that (e.g. [1]). That's more or less equivalent to the good old times of nuclear industry dumping their waste at sea.
>The carbon released by your normal power plant doesn't vanish as the plant closes.
It actually does, the forests in the US alone absorb carbon equivalent to the emissions from over 100 average coal plants per year. The lifetime emissions from a plant operating for 50 years is gone in 6 months after closing, one might say.
Power plants only account for 1/4 of emissions so the blame for global warming will mainly land on other sources.
Unlike the trillion dollars and counting that are currently being caused by only two nuclear plants and nothing but them.
From an accounting pov, carbon capture is extremely scarce. If we mark it as an offset to, power plants (or taxis, or whatever), it won't be available for other essential activities. That's probably the most extreme cost we can imagine now.
> the blame for global warming will mainly land on other sources.
Atmospheric greenhouse gasses are fungible, there is no difference between power plants and any other source from that point of view. 1/4th of emissions is one of the largest budgets, and there's no reason for it to exist, considering we know how to have carbon-free power without much sacrifices.
I'm using the very same definition you used.
If we take one example I gave, there is $0 in the cost a taxi ride provisioned to pay for insurance losses related to climate change, current or future.