21 ms·

Nuclear Power in France

• rllearneratwork 5y ago
  being anti-nuclear at times of climate crisis is a moral and intellectual equivalent to being anti-vaccines during the pandemic
  • prettygood 5y ago
    You're judging to quickly without looking at all parameters. The cost of nuclear power has only been rising and the price per kWh is much higher compared to wind or solar. Building cost and time has never been correctly estimated for new plants. Just ask France, UK and Finland. Which resulted in going way over budget. All of this while prices for solar and wind are lowering... Obviously you can't rely solely on wind and solar but at the moment it would make more sense to invest in those solutions compared to nuclear, for some countries.
    • eldaisfish 5y ago
      every time someone mentions the cost of wind and solar, i remind them of the same point - there are lots of costs that are not borne by wind and solar. The “low” cost is primarily due to their fuel cost being zero and that’s not inherently a bad thing. The problem is in assuming that the current “cost” scales linearly. it does not. Some examples of these costs are balancing, standby, frequency support and so on. At the moment, no “cost” metric for renewables includes these costs. They assume that all energy generated is consumed by the grid and this is increasingly not the case.
    • JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > cost of nuclear power has only been rising and the price per kWh is much higher compared to wind or solar Do we have numbers from China? They're actually pursuing this technology. The West, largely, is not. I'd thus be hesitant about comparing numbers from a stagnated industry from one with active R&D.
    • rllearneratwork 5y ago
      wind and solar are heavily subsidized and nuclear is, arguably, over regulated despite being statistically the safest source of energy (as measured in deaths / twh)
  • beders 5y ago
    bullshit. If there are cheaper and safer alternatives. being anti-nuclear is common sense.
    • rllearneratwork 5y ago
      no one is asking for 100% nuclear. Sure, when sun shines solar makes sense. But it can't satisfy all the needs all the time. Look at California - we are closing our nuclear and buying more electricity from Utah where it is generated using coal and gas. You can't outsource climate change.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • baud147258 5y ago
      are alternatives really cheaper when you need to build more to compensate for the moments when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow?
      • toomuchtodo 5y ago
        Yes, even assuming curtailment, renewables + storage are cheaper than nuclear. EDIT (sources): https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/06/28/los-angeles-seeks-record-setting-solar-power-price-under-2%C2%A2-kwh/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/06/28/los-angeles-seeks-rec... https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/07/01/new-solar--battery-price-crushes-fossil-fuels-buries-nuclear/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/07/01/new-sola... https://twitter.com/mzjacobson/status/1144654725901504512 https://twitter.com/mzjacobson/status/1144654725901504512 https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/08/09/solar-challenging-nuclear-as-potential-climate-change-solution/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/08/09/solar-challenging-nuc... https://www.utilitydive.com/news/minnesota-study-finds-it-cheaper-to-curtail-solar-than-to-add-storage/546467/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/minnesota-study-finds-it-ch...
        • 5y ago
  • lostlogin 5y ago
    Is it not more like being anti Pfizer?
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • jacobsenscott 5y ago
    Being anti-nuclear is more like being anti-facebook. Nuclear is a giant centralized free-loading subsidized secretive toxic industry. Just like nuclear.
    • dane-pgp 5y ago
      I think the usual way of phrasing that joke is: "What's the difference between nuclear power and Facebook? One is a giant centralized free-loading subsidized secretive toxic industry, and the other is a way of providing low-carbon electricity."
  • Zigurd 5y ago
    Here is a better analogy: Being pro nuclear is like being anti-vaxx because monoclonal antibodies work. They just cost a large multiple of vaccination.
• inasio 5y ago
  Fun fact I learned from a guy from the team: the team that built the Pepper robot [0] was originally employed by the French nuclear comission to build and operate robots to remotely work inside nuclear plants in the case of an accident (or when doing cleanups). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_(robot) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_(robot)
• darth_avocado 5y ago
  I love how a bunch of plants have been pushed at the border. Strategically that seems like a bad decision in an event of a war. But in an event of an accident, you push at least some of the risk to your neighbors.
  • cesarb 5y ago
    A more logical explanation is that most country borders are on rivers, and nuclear power plants need a lot of cooling.
• redm 5y ago
  "Government policy is to reduce this to 50% by 2035." I'm no expert on Nuclear power but it seems to me were going in the wrong direction. At a time when we're investing so much money in other fuels, we could be investing that in better nuclear power, like Small Modular Reactors [1], Sodium Cooled Fission, Small Pellet reactors, etc. [2] [1] https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-small-modular-reactors-smrs https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-small-modular-reactors-sm... [2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-rea... Edit: I see France is investing in Small Reactors, but only 1 billion. "One billion euros is to be thrown into nuclear power: “We need to develop small, innovative nuclear reactors in France by 2030, with better waste management," Macron said." [3] https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20211012-hydrogen-nuclear-power-drive-macron-s-%E2%82%AC30bn-plan-to-reindustrialise-france-2030 https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20211012-hydrogen-nuclear-power...
  • ronnier 5y ago
    China is investing in nuclear power. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/23/china-will-lead-the-world-in-nuclear-energy-along-with-all-other-energy-sources-sooner-than-you-think/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/23/china-wil... > As of this month, China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 47.5 GW, third only to the United States and France. And 17 under construction with a capacity of 18.5 GW. None have been shut down. Nuclear provides only 2% of China’s electrical power now, but the country intends nuclear to eventually surpass all other sources
    • mytailorisrich 5y ago
      China actually has a couple of French-built nuclear power plants. There's been a long standing cooperation in that domain.
    • dragonelite 5y ago
      They are also running 4th generation thorium molten salt reactors prototypes and thinking of having a commercial viable design in 2030. From what I gathered the waste is not that suitable for nuclear weapon usage. So those Reactors could be exported to SCO/BRI/global south countries. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w
• beders 5y ago
  Note how France conveniently placed many of their nuclear power plants close to their eastern border. With winds coming from the west most time of the year... Sneaky.
  • baud147258 5y ago
    Or maybe France just built their plants there to put them close to the alluvial resources and close to consumers (between Paris, Germany, Rhine and Rhone valleys), rather than a for reddit-tier conspiracy theory idea. Edit: and the map a sibling comment provided showed that most French nuclear power plants aren't even close to the Eastern border, but rather spread out over the national territory
    • masklinn 5y ago
      > Or maybe France just built their plants there to put them close to the alluvial resources Yep, nukes require cooling, and good cooling mean either the seashore or a large river with suitable sites. Hence there being 4 plants on both Rhone (highest discharge in the country, not including the Rhine) and Loire (longest river in the country), while the smaller Garonne rates only 2.
  • mcronce 5y ago
    What exactly do you think the winds are carrying that would motivate them to place nuclear reactors based on that pattern?
  • ElKrist 5y ago
    For those who actually want to see a map, showing that "how France conveniently placed many of their nuclear power plants close to their eastern border" is non-sense: https://www.irsn.fr/FR/connaissances/Installations_nucleaires/Les-centrales-nucleaires/reacteurs-nucleaires-France/PublishingImages/IRSN_BDC-SUR_Carte-Parc-Reacteur-France.jpg https://www.irsn.fr/FR/connaissances/Installations_nucleaire...
    • timinc 5y ago
• atkailash 5y ago
  Anytime I’m in a discussion about nuclear energy (or I guess energy) France is always my example of well managed. Few major incidents (that I’m aware of, and this seems to confirm unless I’m missing something), and less waste than the US despite using significantly more. Sure the waste is long lasting but it can also be isolated (especially somewhere like the US), whereas byproducts from coal and the smoke from it has worldwide effects. Especially with androgenic climate change being so obvious at this point, it feels like a no brainer
• Ericson2314 5y ago
  Japan is turning the nukes back on, France with the Eastern Europeans is taking on Germany's reckless move https://www.euronews.com/2021/10/11/led-by-france-10-eu-countries-call-on-brussels-to-label-nuclear-energy-as-green-source https://www.euronews.com/2021/10/11/led-by-france-10-eu-coun... . The current energy crunch is demonstrating how "renewables now, nukes of off now, batteries later" is irresponsible both environmentally and politically, I hope it's a turning point. At the vary least, turning off the nukes is a reward one earns after the transition is demonstrated end-to-end, with the grid storage and renewables both in place.
  • oezi 5y ago
    Two counterpoints: - Isn't the current gas shortage just Putin trying to ram through Nordstream 2? - Isn't it great to have high prices fossil energy sources to drive renewable investment and stop wasteful use of fossils?
    • Ericson2314 5y ago
      It is great the price has gone up. What's bad is people are buying it anyways. The price needs to be high, sure, but also too high, in that demand is scared off and consumption/revenue goes down. Sadly, the price is not too high at the moment by that definition. > Isn't the current gas shortage just Putin trying to ram through Nordstream 2? I have no idea. What I noticed is not even a gas shortage, but a wind shortage driving up demand for gas.
    • masklinn 5y ago
      > Two counterpoints: > - Isn't the current gas shortage just Putin trying to ram through Nordstream 2? Is "fossil fuels are a geopolitical weakness" really a counterpoint to "fossil fuels are kinda shit"? And that geopolitical weakness is exactly why france built lots of nukes in the first place, it was not ecological (though that's a nice side-effect), it was for energy and geopolitical independence, and though it fails somewhat in that uranium ore still needs to be procured, it's much easier to stockpile uranium ore than fossil fuels, and the available sources are much more varied: the main known reserves are in Australia, Kazakhstan, Canada, Namibia, South Africa.
• logicalmonster 5y ago
  > However, 58% thought that nuclear power caused climate change while only 46% thought that coal burning did so This raises some interesting thoughts about the nature and importance of democracy.
  • Hermel 5y ago
    Why do you assume that the average politician is better informed than the average citizen?
    • asdff 5y ago
      The average politician at least has reports prepared for them by government scientists and engineers, while the average citizen only hears about things after they've gone through the telephone game of the media.
      • Hermel 5y ago
        The average politician also has reports and diners prepared by lobbyists and others that want to influence his or her judgement. Not sure if that is a net gain for objectivity.
  • misiti3780 5y ago
    how so?
    • bittercynic 5y ago
      It seems like a pretty big problem when the electorate is this misinformed on an issue that's so straightforward, and important.
    • blamazon 5y ago
      In the data provided, the majority believes that burning coal does not cause climate change, while nuclear power does. In fact, it is the reverse--coal's impact on climate change is exponentially more than nuclear. Thus, if the data is accurate, and if the majority rules directly, from these viewpoints it suggests that investments would be made into coal, and reduced from nuclear, which is aligned with creating more climate change, not less. So, this implies that, for these data, democracy and taking action against climate doom are compatible.
• masta 5y ago
  What the site does not seem to talk about is that an internal commission in 2011 found[1] that the real cost per kWh is around 50-56c. Nuclear power in France is heavily subsidized, directly and indirectly. [1] https://bit.ly/3DAGW2s https://bit.ly/3DAGW2s
  • nitrogen 5y ago
    Do you have a non-shortened/non-tracking link?
    • masta 5y ago
      Page is in German: https://taz.de/Kosten-der-Atomkraft-in-Frankreich/!5101723/ https://taz.de/Kosten-der-Atomkraft-in-Frankreich/!5101723/
  • Zigurd 5y ago
    France has also underestimated decommissioning costs by a multiple. The real costs are hard to know, but other nations' estimates are much higher.
• unchocked 5y ago
  I've been prodding friends in the climate movement about their community's historical opposition to nuclear power lately. In my view, opposing nuclear power after 1989 (Hansen's testimony to the US Senate) is anti-climate. I've held up France as an example of where we could be in an alternate history where states did not bow to anti-nuclear activism. Unfortunately, from the article, it seems France is heading in that direction as well. > In October 2014 the Energy Transition for Green Growth bill was passed by the National Assembly and so went onto the Senate. This set a target of 50% for nuclear contribution to electricity supply by 2025, and capped nuclear power capacity at 63.2 GWe, the level at the time. This meant that EDF would have to shut at least 1650 GWe of nuclear capacity when its Flamanville 3 EPR starts commercial operation. A sad decision to see in the only pro nuclear power democracy. And a sad decision for climate, because for decades past and for decades to come, anti-nuclear is pro-coal. *edit, the French government also seems to be slow-walking the tragic mandate: > In October 2016 the government postponed until after the 2017 presidential and National Assembly elections any decision on which, if any, reactors would close in order to reduce the nuclear share to 50%. In 2017 France postponed its 2025 target for reducing the share of nuclear to 50%. In December 2017 the French President stated that nuclear is "the most carbon-free way to produce electricity with renewables." In November 2018, a draft of the country's new energy plan confirmed that 2035 was the new target date for the reduction of nuclear's share to 50%. The plan states that 14 of the country's nuclear reactors will shut down by 2035, 4-6 of those by 2030. However the plan also states that the option to build new nuclear reactors remains.
  • godelski 5y ago
    France is only reducing to 50%. That still means France will be the world leader in nuclear energy. I'm not sure why both pro nuclear and anti-nuclear people see this as the end of nuclear power in France. Far from it. Energy should be well diversified. This is a good move for France and nuclear in general. There are some advantages to solar and wind but they can't support the entire network itself. France's goal is to start by increasing solar and wind and completely eliminate coal first. This move is neither anti-nuclear nor pro-coal.
    • adventured 5y ago
• usui 5y ago
  Reducing nuclear power in France seems to be one of the worst decisions you could make in a time when the rest of the world has its head in the sand. From OP: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr... > France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over €3 billion per year from this. > In November 2018, a draft of the country's new energy plan confirmed that 2035 was the new target date for the reduction of nuclear's share to 50%. The plan states that 14 of the country's nuclear reactors will shut down by 2035, 4-6 of those by 2030. However the plan also states that the option to build new nuclear reactors remains Taking into consideration France's industrial activity and being within the world's top 10 economies with approximately equal to Japan's GDP per capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_France, it is without a doubt one of the best countries in carbon emissions per capita. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... If one were to argue that not all countries are capable of following the nuclear power model, I think that would be a valid argument, but electricity and power can be exported, and France makes a profit from the nearly-free energy that it generates. Before someone mentions renewable energy methods such as solar power, hydro, windmills, etc.: Who exports solar power? Who exports windmill energy? Who stores and uses an effective proportion of methane gas as a result of renewable energy? Is there any country with the available infrastructure of stored energy (centralized or decentralized) that can even make claim to power its own country's needs by a proportion of 70%, let alone 50%? So what about safety? We have been conditioned culturally to believe that nuclear power is dangerous, but stats-wise, coal mining, air pollution, and work hazards account for far, far more deaths recorded than nuclear power so far. I encourage anyone interested to Google "nuclear power deaths comparison" and pick the sources you think are unbiased, or just believe this: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy > Nuclear energy is by far the safest energy source in this comparison – it results in more than 442 times fewer deaths than the ‘dirtiest’ forms of coal; 330 times fewer than coal; 250 times less than oil; and 38 times fewer than gas So nuclear fission brings in money, less deaths, and decarbonization, with the only drawback being its image of how to store nuclear waste which itself shouldn't even be an issue compared to the pollution we see nowadays, and that some proportion of it is also reusable. The anti-nuclear sentiment in favor of solar panels and more green technologies are red herrings even big companies love to use to split up decarbonization into factions and slow the movement down. The infrastructure required to construct+maintain solar panels that can satisfy our current living situation will be slower than going to nuclear, with capacity for future growth currently out of the question because fulfilling current needs is nowhere within reach. If nuclear power is the cheapest way we know to generate power, this is the most obvious way companies can cut down on costs, and the involvement of companies is necessary for climate change to make progress, because companies are the biggest contributors to climate change. People will far more easily change their behavior if you show them something they want, rather than telling them what they do not want. For the current energy arrangement to withstand the next century and to ignore nuclear fission, I believe one of two things needs to happen: A decoupling from opulent, wasteful lifestyles or the breakthrough of nuclear fusion. Do both sound very far from happening? If yes, then nuclear fission is the only choice unless you think every nation in the world is going to hold hands and follow through on climate change policies in exchange for their own economic prosperity relative to other nations.
• pjscott 5y ago
  I often hear opponents of nuclear power say that it takes too long to construct, so it's interesting to look at the timelines for these reactors -- most of them took about 5-6 years from the start of construction to being hooked up to the power grid, and there was a lot of concurrent construction, so their peak throughput was several reactors per year. More recently France seems to have lost the ability to build nuclear plants quickly; their only one under construction has been under construction for the past 14 years, and is projected to finish in 2023. France in the 1970s is existence proof that nuclear plants aren't inherently slow to build, so I have to wonder: what happened? (And what other technology are we in danger of losing?)
  • lazide 5y ago
    We lost the sense of urgency and the connection between our decisions, what happens, and why we feel the way we do. It was also helped along by the ‘green field’ nature of Nuclear at the time (writing new code is easier than fixing a legacy code base, and making a new design when you don’t know and have to consider the bazillion regulations and gotchas since discovered is also easier), and a general ‘do it’ mindset after the massive destruction of the war and ongoing rebuilding. Mostly now we’re not in a hurry because we ‘already have stuff that works’ because we’ve had so many of those prior projects ‘just work’ (hint: they didn’t, it took massive hard work to make them happen - but the people alive today were not the ones getting dirty on the ground there, so they don’t know that). And we haven’t had many big disasters around them yet (as in electric grid collapses for a month in winter and can’t be restarted) to give it more urgency and importance. In some ways I think we’re in a classic ‘rich kid’ fallacy. Hey, we have so much money, why do we need to be responsible right? We can be irresponsible because even if we crash the Porsche we got for our birthday, we’ll get a new one in a week anyway. Well, we only have so much money because the prior generation worked so hard (and stole a bunch of stuff and murdered a bunch of people, but hey whatever - sometimes folks need their illusions), and while the inheritance might last if we keep pissing it away, it usually doesn’t for very long. And one of these days we’re going to crash the Porsche and end up with life long medical issues. It does tend to self correct, but oooof does the other side of the curve hurt. And sometimes whatever mindset or situation created the wealth in the first place just never is recaptured. Greece and Italy are certainly not on a trajectory back to world defining empire status anytime soon, and are more worried about how to keep their pensioners fed.
• olivermarks 5y ago
  i think advanced modular small nuclear reactors are the only viable way forward if we are to have a predominantly electrically powered future society. 'The term “modular” in the context of SMRs refers to the ability to fabricate major components of the nuclear steam supply system in a factory environment and ship to the point of use. Even though current large nuclear power plants incorporate factory-fabricated components (or modules) into their designs, a substantial amount of field work is still required to assemble components into an operational power plant. SMRs are envisioned to require limited on-site preparation and substantially reduce the lengthy construction times that are typical of the larger units. SMRs provide simplicity of design, enhanced safety features, the economics and quality afforded by factory production, and more flexibility (financing, siting, sizing, and end-use applications) compared to larger nuclear power plants. Additional modules can be added incrementally as demand for energy increases'. https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-small-modular-reactors-smrs https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-small-modular-reactors-sm... Most people are still thinking last century enormous reactors. Electricity does not travel well and a network of modular reactors provides enormous opportunity for housing development in areas that are hard to get power to. I am no longer enthusiastic about solar or wind power except for fringe augmentation of grids
  • throwaway894345 5y ago
    I share the same viewpoint. I wonder if anyone has any information about what ordinary Americans can do to support SMRs? What should I ask my representatives to do? Is there proposed legislation I could petition them to support? Are there organizations I could donate to?
• corban1 5y ago
  Nuclear is clean, it is safe but it is not cheap. It's safe and clean because of it's moderately priced. I stand by nuclear because it's cleanness and safeness which can't be compared to anything else. What will we generate electricity with in non-windy cloudy days? Coal? LNG? ESS? Note that all of those options are more dangerous, more expensive and more dirty than nuclear.
  • misiti3780 5y ago
    Not sure about Europe, but nuclear seems to be expensive in the US because construction costs are high because of overcautious regulation[1]. It was considerably cheaper in the 50/60s here, and it seems like mostly a policy issue [1] https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop
    • pydry 5y ago
      Nuclear is expensive with a $200 million liability cap for accidents. By comparison, that's roughly 0.2-0.5% of what the total cost of dealing with Fukushima will cost. If we think it's over-regulated the first regulation that should go should be that $200 million liability cap. Then perhaps private insurers can decide for themselves what level of safety is required to protect them from a potential $1 trillion cleanup cost they'd be on the hook for. If the nuclear industry can convince them it's worth it at all, that is.
      • misiti3780 5y ago
        ok, that sounds like a policy issue though - no ?
      • corban1 5y ago
        Do cars pay for the possibility of crude oils spilled in the ocean? Was the Deepwater Horizon insured for the full amount of dealing with the disaster? Does coal energy plants pay for future diseases of people breathing air from their chimney? Does wind turbines pay for people that suffer from low frequency sounds and solar flickers? All energy sources have uncertainties. We've been using much much more dangerous energy sources than nuclear. So the question is yours; why do you assume the worst only for nuclear when nuclear is the only source that is preparing for the worst?
• Zigurd 5y ago
  From this 2017 article: https://energypost.eu/how-much-will-it-really-cost-to-decommission-the-aging-french-nuclear-fleet/ https://energypost.eu/how-much-will-it-really-cost-to-decomm... Whereas Germany has set aside €38 billion to decommission 17 nuclear reactors, and the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority estimates that clean-up of UK’s 17 nuclear sites will cost between €109‒250 billion over the next 120 years, France has set aside only €23 billion to decommissioning its 58 reactors. To put this in context, according to the European Commission That's an impressive range of estimates. Who thinks the lower estimates are realistic?
  • orwin 5y ago
    You can't compare PWR to gas/graphite or heavy water reactor core. PWr is harder to design and to build and need special combustible, but you don't have to wait 100 years to bypass the shield, unlike UK's gaz/graphite reactors. We will see by 2030 the real cost anyway. Also, EDF set aside 23 billions (not France) and aim for 56 billions for the 58 reactors (as they will still produce electricity some more years). I've seen a better estimate of the cost is 90 billion (so EDF will be missing roughly 30 billions). But if the reactors are allowed 20 more years (like US own PWRs), i think everything will be fine. especially considering the ressources. Also, according the engineers at The Shift Project, based on Rystad data, future of petroleum imports look bleak[0], and while their study was done before Covid, they perfectly predicted the situation we are in this winter. Fear not, it is only the beginning of a trend, so next year might be better actually. [0] https://theshiftproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/%C3%89tude_D%C3%A9clin-de-lapprovisionnement-de-lUE-en-p%C3%A9trole-dici-2030_TSP.pdf https://theshiftproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/%C3%8... (in french)
• Zigurd 5y ago
  "Fungible" is a word not appearing on this page yet. But the most important thing for future power generation is how much you can buy for the money. Energy capex is fungible. Here are the numbers. Buy the ones at the bottom of the graph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
• saboot 5y ago
  I don't understand why nuclear waste is considered a significant issue. You either bury it, or leave it on site enclosed in concrete. We bury much worse chemicals with little to no regulation right now. There's many solutions to put nuclear waste in a stable form such as vitrification. There's no time left, feel like screaming at the world that we are okay with putting carbon indefinitely in the air instead. Nuclear waste is such a small issue in comparison.