4 ms·

I'd quibble with the price point - economies of scale can reduce the cost of nuclear pretty dramatically. That said, I've got no problem with it in principle.

I'd quibble with the price point - economies of scale can reduce the cost of nuclear pretty dramatically. That said, I've got no problem with it in principle. Pricing externalities properly seems the simplest way to solve the tragedy of the commons, but it's complicated in this case by the fact that climate is a _global_ commons. A revenue-neutral carbon tax would make it a more manageable political lift. AFAIK the US is the only country to have "solved" the bigger political problem of long-term nuclear waste storage?

pfdietz 7y ago
The nuclear waste disposal problem is a can that is very kickable down the road. The "solution" in the US, and I think elsewhere, is (after ten years or so of cooling) just put the spent fuel in dry casks. This is simple and cheap and safe, and does not foreclose any future options for dealing with it. One might criticize this for foisting the problem on future generations, but I suggest this is a truly minor problem compared to others we're foisting on them, and they'll be in a better position to deal with it that we are. It would be a poor solution compared to immediate reprocessing if we lived in a High Nuclear scenario where uranium was running low, but we don't live in that world.