3 ms·

Sort of agree. But unfortunately as a taxpayer or ratepayer you still end up sharing the cost of centralized boondoggles when they happen. Less so with decentra

• masklinn 7y ago
  Nuclear is not that expensive over its entire lifetime though, the biggest issue (aside from safety and security concerns) is the huge up-front investment. In theory SMRs improve that significantly by providing smaller self-contained units which are easier to reclaim (unlike a traditional power plant site which can't really be reused even if you decommission it).
  • pfdietz 7y ago
    People try to point to operating cost once the investment cost is amortized, but that's only relevant for the decision of whether to shut down an existing nuclear plant. The fully loaded cost, including the cost to build and finance the plant, is the relevant figure when deciding whether to build a new nuclear plant. And even on operating cost, many nuclear plants in the US have failed to be cash flow positive in recent years, and have been shut down before their end of their lives. The remaining reactor at Three Mile Island had not made an operating profit in six years before it was ended.
  • natch 7y ago
    I think there may be some clever accounting going on if it’s claimed to not be that expensive. Example, the carbon offsets that should be required for for the concrete typically used in a large plant are never spoken of. And cleanup and disaster recovery costs are probably tucked away somewhere else or even far off the balance sheet, out of sight. They used to say nuclear energy would be “too cheap to meter” and if that can come to pass (safely) I’m all for it but the accounting has to be done honestly.