4 ms·
When the US originally decided to build out plants in the 1960's, the plan was for 1000 plants. We ended up with just over 100. Each construction was filled w
by Pokepokalypse 10y ago
When the US originally decided to build out plants in the 1960's, the plan was for 1000 plants. We ended up with just over 100. Each construction was filled with delays and cost-overruns. Then, we ran those plants, based on out-dated designs, long after they were intended to be torn down and replaced. Even some plants that were upgraded, had flaws that prevented them from being used, (SONGS is a good example), so they had to be shut down.
The industry won't pay for R&D for new designs. They won't invest in proper maintenance and training. They barely keep their word on decomissioning schedules.
Waste storage is a huge, huge problem, that nobody has addressed yet. (except the French). And even fuel reprocessing doesn't fully solve the problem.
I think it's a great technology, and there are awesome new designs that could be researched, tested, and put into production. But the industry has to actually pay for this shit and do it. And that's just not happening. The finance side of the industry is still stuck in 1960's models. Operators are finding that these plants aren't even profitable to operate, compared to natural gas plants. (so nuclear is very vulnerable to short-term energy market fluctuations after you've invested billions of dollars into construction).
Also: insurance is not insignificant, when there is a risk of accident that will contaminate land around the plant for hundreds of square miles. That's all "someone else's property" - and those people need to be compensated. What if it's a farmer, who would have generated revenue with that land for the next 100 years (while we wait for the cesium and strontium to decay or wash out of the soil)?
Insurance funds do not cover that kind of loss.