3 ms·
The economics are based on two things: 1.) Incredible cost to privately insure a nuclear power plant. 2.) There hasn't been an economy of scale when producing
by ohyes 10y ago
The economics are based on two things:
1.) Incredible cost to privately insure a nuclear power plant.
2.) There hasn't been an economy of scale when producing nuclear power plants.
- badloginagain 10y agoI'd also add 3) Nuclear power technology is running on technology half a century old. This gives you a couple interesting points to consider: - Once built, you have reliable baseload power for generations. - Modernized power plants could be safer, more efficient, and smaller by orders of magnitude. Demonization of nuclear power prevents improvements to nuclear power. The industry is stuck in the 60's. The real shame is that it's the only technology we have that is really future-friendly: Planetary colonization can't rely on wind, nor solar, and certainly not fossil fuels for power. Nuclear will really be the only option for reliable baseload power to extra-terrestrial colonies.
- ohyes 10y agoAbsolutely, and even the new designs are multiple decades old. (But even those are a huge improvement over what we have from the 60s/70s). Many of existing plants were at the time they were built considered to be important for national security (read: nuclear arsenal), which is much of why they're using the fuel they use and have the designs they have. Civilian nuclear never really materialized in it's own right, which is certainly a shame.
- fnj 10y agoA nuclear power plant disaster is pretty much going to bankrupt somebody, no matter who insures it. Even if the insurance is nationally subsidized, something like Fukushima is going to be a crushing burden on the whole country.