3 ms·

> the more safe you try to make them, the slower to build and more expensive they will end up being That doesn't follow. We have countless examples across mult

> the more safe you try to make them, the slower to build and more expensive they will end up being That doesn't follow. We have countless examples across multiple industries on technologies that became cheaper and safer at the same time. If you try to make the old designs safe (created for weapons manufacturing first and energy production second), then sure. However, there are newer designs that are cheaper to build and safer to operate (can't 'meltdown', for one). "Refactoring" old designs is not aways feasible. You are very limited in what you can do. Maybe you can replace the core with a similarly sized one, but what about everything else? Any significant changes in (say) your cooling system and you are now looking at an entirely new plant.

CyanBird 5y ago
> That doesn't follow. We have countless examples across multiple industries on technologies that became cheaper and safer at the same time. Well, that is because nuclear energy is unlike "multiple technologies and industries", it is a highly politiced industry which when it has failed, it has done so spectacularly and at high localized costs All the updates and changes after high profile accidents such as Fukushima are highly expensive same with review of being built and existing reactors which bloat budgets and schedules, this is precisely one of the big issues Westinghouse and Toshiba had post fukushima Currently on a bus, so I can only answer to the initial excerpt, when I get home I'll see if I can answer the rest