3 ms·
And it appears nobody factors in the cost of nuclear electricity the cost of associated with non-zero probability of a malfunction, or dealing with the long-ter
by java-man 8y ago
And it appears nobody factors in the cost of nuclear electricity the cost of associated with non-zero probability of a malfunction, or dealing with the long-term storage of nuclear waste.
I do not understand how spending 2 billion on a plant and 50 billion in case of a major meltdown is better that putting 2 billion into covering the country in solar panels and batteries.
The reason, as many commenters have said, is the vested interest of powerful players.
- distances 8y ago> I do not understand how spending 2 billion on a plant and 50 billion in case of a major meltdown is better that putting 2 billion into covering the country in solar panels and batteries. And 2 billion may be very optimistic even. The current price tag estimate for the nuclear plant being built in Finland is almost 10 billion euros, and over 10 years late. It'll likely be the second most expensive building in the world.
- java-man 8y agoThis is a number I remember from 1999. For Finland specifically, I understand it is difficult to rely on solar. May be in a 100 years, when we can run a superconducting cable through Russia to more Southern places. On the other hand, imagine a scale of disaster if Fukushima-style meltdown happens in Finland. Is it really worth it?