It appears that it will take 30 years for the nuclear facility in Japan, destroyed by a tsunami following an earthquake, to be decommissioned.
Much is currently being made in the media of the large losses of the US administration in ventures such as Solyndra and how risky investments in solar/renewable energy can be. These same people support the pipeline from Canada’s tar sands as a viable means of new energy source. Again, the costs to nature are not included in the equation.
So when people tell me that solar is too expensive, I wonder how they calculate and back up their statements? Where is the cost to economies, people’s lives, nature in the Japanese situation? Where is the cost to wildlife and other environmental issues in the Canadian one?
So while their “subsidies” are below the line, the ones for solar are all “above” because they are simple product subsidies. A fair playing field means counting ALL costs, not just the ones we see.