8 ms·

Comming from a country where nucler power is nowhere near the radar, what is the case against nuclear power? it seems such a nobrainer for me to use

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
It usually goes like this: Chernobyl! Fukushima! Radiation! Waste! Death! Death!! DEATH TO ALL HUMANITY!!!
- rectang 5y ago
  You left out proliferation of dual-use technologies. The fewer countries with advanced nuclear capabilities, the more thinly spread the expertise necessary to build nuclear weapons. If Russia didn't have nukes, its imperialistic ambitious would be curtailed. The ability to shield conventional assaults behind a nuclear threat is destabilizing for the rules-based world order.
  - qwytw 5y ago
    Is this also sarcasm? So you're saying that building this plant has increase the chance Finland will try to acquire Nuclear weapons? And Russia has nukes purely due to political and military reasons, they'd still have more than enough of them if they mostly started closing/stopped building new plants after Chernobyl.
    - rectang 5y ago
      No, it's not sarcasm — I would appreciate it if you would be a little more generous when interpreting my remark. The proliferation problem is exacerbated incrementally by every additional plant in every additional country — including this one. The issue is not Finland in particular developing nuclear weapons, but any country developing nuclear weapons — especially a country governed by an autocracy. Or a country that might be governed by an autocracy in the future — the last few years have raised the urgency of the problem of democratic backsliding, which we need to figure out how to avert.
      - yakubin 5y ago
        The countries which are least trustworthy wrt nuclear weapons are the ones that aren't going to ask the public's permission. An autocracy doesn't need to power itself by nuclear plants in order to have nuclear weapons. On the other hand having a sustainable, clean source of power not tied to autocratic regimes lowers the leverage those regimes hold over democratic countries. In my particular country, a major chunk of the public budget goes towards paying fines to EU for use of coal, all while our government periodically passes bills allowing it to borrow more money from the central bank, increasing inflation. Negotiations with neighbouring autocratic countries can be pretty tough, when they can threaten us and rest of Europe, which is going to put pressure, with stopping energy transmission. Energy shortages in some parts of the country were a regular occurrence for decades, even before the current political problems. Lack of nuclear plants does nothing to prevent a nuclear war, while it harms us on many very tangible levels.
        rectang 5y ago
        See https://whatisnuclear.com/non-proliferation.html#how-is-nuclear-power-tied-to-nuclear-non-proliferation https://whatisnuclear.com/non-proliferation.html#how-is-nucl... for one of the mechanisms whereby dual-use technology presents issues: obtaining fissile material is difficult, and while nuclear power plants are not a prerequisite, they make it easier. I agree that dependence on geopolitically and environmentally problematic fossil fuel sources is a pressing concern.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        > In my particular country... But yet [your country] is not lost?
        yakubin 5y ago
        What do you mean by "lost"?
        CRConrad 5y ago
        Just a guess at what country you were talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_Is_Not_Yet_Lost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_Is_Not_Yet_Lost . OK, so not Poland, then. :-)
    - jrockway 5y ago
      I don't think it's sarcasm. Maybe North Korea is a better example. It would probably just be "Korea" if they didn't have nukes, but you can't exactly go in and overthrow the government when they can just wipe out all human life on the peninsula in an instant. (People get upset at the implication that one country would take over another country, but the people of North Korea would probably not be worse off if that happened. Instead they suffer greatly because nobody can help them.)
      - RobertMiller 5y ago
        > It would probably just be "Korea" if they didn't have nukes Their first nuclear test was in 2006. Even their production of refined uranium and plutonium only began in the 80s, decades after the war came to a standstill.
        jrockway 5y ago
        Kind of a case of ignoring geopolitical debt, I guess. Anybody who wants to fix the problem today has an impossible task that was once possible.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        Seems to indicate that the general rule of thumb should be to fix shit like that ASAP, so it won't over time get impossible to fix.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        > People get upset at the implication that one country would take over another country If anyone is upset that the people of the German "Democratic" Republic got to join the rest of "We, the people" in a free Federal Republic, they're cordially invited to go fuck themselves. The same would go ten times over for anyone feeling that way about the much more oppressed North Koreans.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    https://whatisnuclear.com/non-proliferation.html https://whatisnuclear.com/non-proliferation.html
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    Russia imperialistic ambitions would be far more modest if Europe and US wouldn't fill Putin's coffers with hundreds of billions of dollars and euros in exchange for oil and gas. You know, the things they use instead of Nuclear energy.
    - rectang 5y ago
      Indeed, we are left with (from my perspective) all bad choices in the short-to-medium term. In the US, we made a least-bad calculation when choosing the environmental cost of fracking over the geopolitical costs of depending on dictator oil. Now Europe gets to make similar calculations. I'd sure like it if less inherently dangerous technologies were further along. But every year they are gaining.
- Aachen 5y ago
  And if you manage to convince someone this is an airplane crash type of problem, they start about the finances. And they're right about it not being the cheapest option, so what can you say? They win the argument. Next time you meet the person is at a protest where they don't want a solar farm where there is now a nice forest or pasture, no 24/7 moving shadows from huge wind turbine blades and that's after they pushed for a law to require more space between the edge of town and the nearest turbine, protesting for fish rights when hydro is being proposed (if that's possible in their area in the first place)... People also love to gloss over that electricity is 10% of the problem. Whenever you see a headline about Germany having run on 90% renewable power last month or whatever, mentally replace that with 9% because energy used in transportation, building heating, etc. don't count towards this. And then we haven't even touched upon the problem of cement/steel/plastic yet, we're going to need breakthrough materials or negative emissions with capturing plants that, you guessed it, also require electricity. It's apparently very hard to understand that we need to work on all fronts, not pick a partial solution and wait until that's exhaustively implemented (all reasonably available space occupied) 15 years down the road, then wonder why emissions are at record highs (see 2021).
  - manquer 5y ago
    It is less about being cheap and more about being predictable. Getting consistent funding for new projects is hard when every other project in history has over run both costs and time widely.
    - Aachen 5y ago
      If mere cost/time predictability were the problem we could double any worst-case projection. Even at that price point it's something I think we should pursue alongside the more renewable sources. That electricity has been dirt(y) cheap in the past decades was great, but that's just not sustainable. But yeah if we argue for another five years before getting started on at least the legislation/planning stages (after which we could still declare it a sunk cost, based on how the situation looks in 2027), we might as well forget about it.
      - 5y ago
- Tepix 5y ago
  Insane cost overruns. Takes decades to build, will be too late for climate change. Uranium is also a finite resource
theshrike79 5y ago
Fear based on feeling, not on facts. That's it. By any objective metric, nuclear is by far the best choice for stable base power generation. "But what if it explodes" - and there goes all rationality. Humans will take constant death from coal power plants rather than a minuscule chance of a larger catastrophe in a nuclear plant.
- ljf 5y ago
  As soon as private industry is funding and running nuclear power including the decommissioning costs, plus selling their energy at market rates (in the UK we have guaranteed the new nuclear plants rates that are higher than the next most expensive generators costs) then I'll believe that. The only way these are remotely economical is when they are funded by the tax payer before the are built, while they run, and after they close down. Any examples that goes against that? I'd be very interested to learn about them. I think as a way to ensure energy independence and remove fossil fuels they are good, but we cannot pretend they don't come with massive costs, and don't yet pay their own way.
  - p_l 5y ago
    The problem is that markets are supremely bad at building a stable electricity grid. So on one hand wind and solar are getting cheaper per MW, but it doesn't include the effect they have on destabilising both the grid and electricity markets - in fact, solar getting cheaper is probably going to cause a stop on buildout in some places, because the price of solar MW is going to be too low to deal with all the time you're not producing - either due to lack of sun, or due to curtailment. And we do not really have any storage available - the only systems that are 1) not experimental 2) usable for anything other than frequency stabilisation; are the pumped hydro - and those are geographically limited. At least when it's windy, you can use wind turbines as sinks for stability. Intermittent nature of solar and wind is too intermittent for most industrial sinks. Meanwhile unpredictable nature of generation from wind and solar push the grid to buildout LNG/petroleum powered gas turbines, due to their very short delay on ramping up/down (IIRC, second only to hydro). So you end up in situation where market approach to electricity is going to prevent decarbonisation, unless you hugely upend what is being bought on the market. Personally I've been thinking of electricity market paying only for predictable (aka "dispatchable") low-carbon power plants, or at least with huge priority. Solar and Wind could still compete on such market by being paired with storage systems into Virtual Power Plants (something that already exists), and the rest of the generation would be sold on spot market during peaks, or preferably to dedicated sinks like green hydrogen production.
londons_explore 5y ago
* Plants are very expensive to build. Due to massive upfront costs, it cannot beat wind/solar today unless you use very unusual financial models. (ie. assume interest rates are zero for 50 years). If nuclear plants were built more frequently, cost would come down a lot - it turns out making everything bespoke is hugely expensive. * Lots of public opposition due to the public being scared of nuclear waste, nuclear accidents, etc. The public far prefers taking on invisible risk (like the lung cancer risk from coal/oil/gas emissions) than the huge event risk of a nuclear meltdown, even if the overall harm to human lives is higher.
- cipher_system 5y ago
  Keep in mind that Finland is on the same latitudes as Alaska so solar doesn't work that great when needed the most.
iso1631 5y ago
Extreme cost (money and time) to get it built Difficulties in managing waste 20 years ago I was all for nuclear, then I looked at terrible projects in Europe, like in the Finland and the UK, and realised that it's too little too late. Europe can't build nuclear, so rather than trying to fight a losing battle for another 20 years, Europe should be massively investing in what it can do (offshore wind, tidal, solar, pumped hydro)
- hackerfromthefu 5y ago
  Plus proliferation of material for nuclear weapons.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    https://whatisnuclear.com/non-proliferation.html https://whatisnuclear.com/non-proliferation.html
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    I'm thinking proliferation as positive. Just think of countries recently in war had nuclear deterrent. They might not have been invaded in first place. Everyone having nuclear weapons would make world much more peaceful and safer place. That is unless we sanction all nations that have nuclear weapons and blockade them from international trade until they get rid of them and subject themselves to being open to inspections for couple centuries.
    - rhn_mk1 5y ago
      > Everyone having nuclear weapons would make world much more peaceful and safer place. That's the happy path. The failure path with an unhinged dictator causing global destruction also gets much more likely.
      - Ekaros 5y ago
        Then again the so called "rational" actors would be less likely do bad things. Just imagine how much better place world would be if in response to drone strike by Obama or Biden the NYC or Washington DC was hit by nuclear weapon. That would surely put end to those antics.
crote 5y ago
- Time. This one took over a decade and a half to build, and that's pretty normal - Cost. Literally billions of dollars, all upfront. This one was budgeted at $3B and ended up costing $10B+. - Inflexibility. Almost all of the cost is in building one, so if you aren't running it basically 100% of the time at 100% capacity you are losing money. When it comes to $/MWh, nuclear simply can't compete with fossil or renewable when demand is low. And you can't run it to pick up high demand because it gets even more expensive. The private market is simply not interested in them, unless they get a government guarantee that forces their production to be bought at a fixed price. And there's of course the whole safety and waste argument, but I consider that to be secondary. All in all, nuclear is a could-have-been and mostly a side-effect of nuclear arms development. Neat technology, but there are way better options.
- fsflover 5y ago
  All these arguments are moot, see the research: https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html https://whatisnuclear.com/fukushima.html https://whatisnuclear.com/fukushima.html ...etc.
  - freemint 5y ago
    See this nuclear positive website that doesn't have an imprint (I can find on mobile). I wouldn't bcall it research either. Summary would probably be fair.
    - fsflover 5y ago
      It contains links to the research.
      - Krasnol 5y ago
        Yeah but only where it fits the narrative which in the question of cost for example leads to this: 1) If markets valued the low-CO2 nature of nuclear, they’d be doing better 2) Multiple hypothetical approaches to reduce nuclear costs are ongoing. No one knows for sure if any of them will work, or which one will work best 3) Factory-produced large reactors on floating platforms is a surprisingly intriguing idea to make reactors cheap or: 1) make everything else more expensive so we look better 2) let me consult the magic orb because I have nothing in my hands 3) I have a nice idea Meanwhile we have HERE just another example of hilariously expensive reactor. Actual facts. Waved away with theories like "we don't have the people with experience anymore" which leaves you with the thought: should inexperienced people build nuclear reactors at all?
chabes 5y ago
Look at the situation in Ukraine. A huge problem almost nobody is talking about is the largest nuclear plant in Europe was just captured by an invading military force just over a week ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_P...

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago

It usually goes like this: Chernobyl! Fukushima! Radiation! Waste! Death! Death!! DEATH TO ALL HUMANITY!!!

rectang 5y ago
You left out proliferation of dual-use technologies. The fewer countries with advanced nuclear capabilities, the more thinly spread the expertise necessary to build nuclear weapons. If Russia didn't have nukes, its imperialistic ambitious would be curtailed. The ability to shield conventional assaults behind a nuclear threat is destabilizing for the rules-based world order.
- qwytw 5y ago
  Is this also sarcasm? So you're saying that building this plant has increase the chance Finland will try to acquire Nuclear weapons? And Russia has nukes purely due to political and military reasons, they'd still have more than enough of them if they mostly started closing/stopped building new plants after Chernobyl.
  - rectang 5y ago
    No, it's not sarcasm — I would appreciate it if you would be a little more generous when interpreting my remark. The proliferation problem is exacerbated incrementally by every additional plant in every additional country — including this one. The issue is not Finland in particular developing nuclear weapons, but any country developing nuclear weapons — especially a country governed by an autocracy. Or a country that might be governed by an autocracy in the future — the last few years have raised the urgency of the problem of democratic backsliding, which we need to figure out how to avert.
    - yakubin 5y ago
      The countries which are least trustworthy wrt nuclear weapons are the ones that aren't going to ask the public's permission. An autocracy doesn't need to power itself by nuclear plants in order to have nuclear weapons. On the other hand having a sustainable, clean source of power not tied to autocratic regimes lowers the leverage those regimes hold over democratic countries. In my particular country, a major chunk of the public budget goes towards paying fines to EU for use of coal, all while our government periodically passes bills allowing it to borrow more money from the central bank, increasing inflation. Negotiations with neighbouring autocratic countries can be pretty tough, when they can threaten us and rest of Europe, which is going to put pressure, with stopping energy transmission. Energy shortages in some parts of the country were a regular occurrence for decades, even before the current political problems. Lack of nuclear plants does nothing to prevent a nuclear war, while it harms us on many very tangible levels.
      - rectang 5y ago
        See https://whatisnuclear.com/non-proliferation.html#how-is-nuclear-power-tied-to-nuclear-non-proliferation https://whatisnuclear.com/non-proliferation.html#how-is-nucl... for one of the mechanisms whereby dual-use technology presents issues: obtaining fissile material is difficult, and while nuclear power plants are not a prerequisite, they make it easier. I agree that dependence on geopolitically and environmentally problematic fossil fuel sources is a pressing concern.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        > In my particular country... But yet [your country] is not lost?
        yakubin 5y ago
        What do you mean by "lost"?
        CRConrad 5y ago
        Just a guess at what country you were talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_Is_Not_Yet_Lost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_Is_Not_Yet_Lost . OK, so not Poland, then. :-)
  - jrockway 5y ago
    I don't think it's sarcasm. Maybe North Korea is a better example. It would probably just be "Korea" if they didn't have nukes, but you can't exactly go in and overthrow the government when they can just wipe out all human life on the peninsula in an instant. (People get upset at the implication that one country would take over another country, but the people of North Korea would probably not be worse off if that happened. Instead they suffer greatly because nobody can help them.)
    - RobertMiller 5y ago
      > It would probably just be "Korea" if they didn't have nukes Their first nuclear test was in 2006. Even their production of refined uranium and plutonium only began in the 80s, decades after the war came to a standstill.
      - jrockway 5y ago
        Kind of a case of ignoring geopolitical debt, I guess. Anybody who wants to fix the problem today has an impossible task that was once possible.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        Seems to indicate that the general rule of thumb should be to fix shit like that ASAP, so it won't over time get impossible to fix.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > People get upset at the implication that one country would take over another country If anyone is upset that the people of the German "Democratic" Republic got to join the rest of "We, the people" in a free Federal Republic, they're cordially invited to go fuck themselves. The same would go ten times over for anyone feeling that way about the much more oppressed North Koreans.
- fsflover 5y ago
  https://whatisnuclear.com/non-proliferation.html https://whatisnuclear.com/non-proliferation.html
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  Russia imperialistic ambitions would be far more modest if Europe and US wouldn't fill Putin's coffers with hundreds of billions of dollars and euros in exchange for oil and gas. You know, the things they use instead of Nuclear energy.
  - rectang 5y ago
    Indeed, we are left with (from my perspective) all bad choices in the short-to-medium term. In the US, we made a least-bad calculation when choosing the environmental cost of fracking over the geopolitical costs of depending on dictator oil. Now Europe gets to make similar calculations. I'd sure like it if less inherently dangerous technologies were further along. But every year they are gaining.
Aachen 5y ago
And if you manage to convince someone this is an airplane crash type of problem, they start about the finances. And they're right about it not being the cheapest option, so what can you say? They win the argument. Next time you meet the person is at a protest where they don't want a solar farm where there is now a nice forest or pasture, no 24/7 moving shadows from huge wind turbine blades and that's after they pushed for a law to require more space between the edge of town and the nearest turbine, protesting for fish rights when hydro is being proposed (if that's possible in their area in the first place)... People also love to gloss over that electricity is 10% of the problem. Whenever you see a headline about Germany having run on 90% renewable power last month or whatever, mentally replace that with 9% because energy used in transportation, building heating, etc. don't count towards this. And then we haven't even touched upon the problem of cement/steel/plastic yet, we're going to need breakthrough materials or negative emissions with capturing plants that, you guessed it, also require electricity. It's apparently very hard to understand that we need to work on all fronts, not pick a partial solution and wait until that's exhaustively implemented (all reasonably available space occupied) 15 years down the road, then wonder why emissions are at record highs (see 2021).
- manquer 5y ago
  It is less about being cheap and more about being predictable. Getting consistent funding for new projects is hard when every other project in history has over run both costs and time widely.
  - Aachen 5y ago
    If mere cost/time predictability were the problem we could double any worst-case projection. Even at that price point it's something I think we should pursue alongside the more renewable sources. That electricity has been dirt(y) cheap in the past decades was great, but that's just not sustainable. But yeah if we argue for another five years before getting started on at least the legislation/planning stages (after which we could still declare it a sunk cost, based on how the situation looks in 2027), we might as well forget about it.
    - 5y ago
Tepix 5y ago
Insane cost overruns. Takes decades to build, will be too late for climate change. Uranium is also a finite resource

theshrike79 5y ago

Fear based on feeling, not on facts. That's it. By any objective metric, nuclear is by far the best choice for stable base power generation. "But what if it explodes" - and there goes all rationality. Humans will take constant death from coal power plants rather than a minuscule chance of a larger catastrophe in a nuclear plant.

ljf 5y ago
As soon as private industry is funding and running nuclear power including the decommissioning costs, plus selling their energy at market rates (in the UK we have guaranteed the new nuclear plants rates that are higher than the next most expensive generators costs) then I'll believe that. The only way these are remotely economical is when they are funded by the tax payer before the are built, while they run, and after they close down. Any examples that goes against that? I'd be very interested to learn about them. I think as a way to ensure energy independence and remove fossil fuels they are good, but we cannot pretend they don't come with massive costs, and don't yet pay their own way.
- p_l 5y ago
  The problem is that markets are supremely bad at building a stable electricity grid. So on one hand wind and solar are getting cheaper per MW, but it doesn't include the effect they have on destabilising both the grid and electricity markets - in fact, solar getting cheaper is probably going to cause a stop on buildout in some places, because the price of solar MW is going to be too low to deal with all the time you're not producing - either due to lack of sun, or due to curtailment. And we do not really have any storage available - the only systems that are 1) not experimental 2) usable for anything other than frequency stabilisation; are the pumped hydro - and those are geographically limited. At least when it's windy, you can use wind turbines as sinks for stability. Intermittent nature of solar and wind is too intermittent for most industrial sinks. Meanwhile unpredictable nature of generation from wind and solar push the grid to buildout LNG/petroleum powered gas turbines, due to their very short delay on ramping up/down (IIRC, second only to hydro). So you end up in situation where market approach to electricity is going to prevent decarbonisation, unless you hugely upend what is being bought on the market. Personally I've been thinking of electricity market paying only for predictable (aka "dispatchable") low-carbon power plants, or at least with huge priority. Solar and Wind could still compete on such market by being paired with storage systems into Virtual Power Plants (something that already exists), and the rest of the generation would be sold on spot market during peaks, or preferably to dedicated sinks like green hydrogen production.

londons_explore 5y ago

* Plants are very expensive to build. Due to massive upfront costs, it cannot beat wind/solar today unless you use very unusual financial models. (ie. assume interest rates are zero for 50 years). If nuclear plants were built more frequently, cost would come down a lot - it turns out making everything bespoke is hugely expensive. * Lots of public opposition due to the public being scared of nuclear waste, nuclear accidents, etc. The public far prefers taking on invisible risk (like the lung cancer risk from coal/oil/gas emissions) than the huge event risk of a nuclear meltdown, even if the overall harm to human lives is higher.

cipher_system 5y ago
Keep in mind that Finland is on the same latitudes as Alaska so solar doesn't work that great when needed the most.

iso1631 5y ago

Extreme cost (money and time) to get it built Difficulties in managing waste 20 years ago I was all for nuclear, then I looked at terrible projects in Europe, like in the Finland and the UK, and realised that it's too little too late. Europe can't build nuclear, so rather than trying to fight a losing battle for another 20 years, Europe should be massively investing in what it can do (offshore wind, tidal, solar, pumped hydro)

hackerfromthefu 5y ago
Plus proliferation of material for nuclear weapons.
- fsflover 5y ago
  https://whatisnuclear.com/non-proliferation.html https://whatisnuclear.com/non-proliferation.html
- Ekaros 5y ago
  I'm thinking proliferation as positive. Just think of countries recently in war had nuclear deterrent. They might not have been invaded in first place. Everyone having nuclear weapons would make world much more peaceful and safer place. That is unless we sanction all nations that have nuclear weapons and blockade them from international trade until they get rid of them and subject themselves to being open to inspections for couple centuries.
  - rhn_mk1 5y ago
    > Everyone having nuclear weapons would make world much more peaceful and safer place. That's the happy path. The failure path with an unhinged dictator causing global destruction also gets much more likely.
    - Ekaros 5y ago
      Then again the so called "rational" actors would be less likely do bad things. Just imagine how much better place world would be if in response to drone strike by Obama or Biden the NYC or Washington DC was hit by nuclear weapon. That would surely put end to those antics.

crote 5y ago

- Time. This one took over a decade and a half to build, and that's pretty normal - Cost. Literally billions of dollars, all upfront. This one was budgeted at $3B and ended up costing $10B+. - Inflexibility. Almost all of the cost is in building one, so if you aren't running it basically 100% of the time at 100% capacity you are losing money. When it comes to $/MWh, nuclear simply can't compete with fossil or renewable when demand is low. And you can't run it to pick up high demand because it gets even more expensive. The private market is simply not interested in them, unless they get a government guarantee that forces their production to be bought at a fixed price. And there's of course the whole safety and waste argument, but I consider that to be secondary. All in all, nuclear is a could-have-been and mostly a side-effect of nuclear arms development. Neat technology, but there are way better options.

fsflover 5y ago
All these arguments are moot, see the research: https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html https://whatisnuclear.com/fukushima.html https://whatisnuclear.com/fukushima.html ...etc.
- freemint 5y ago
  See this nuclear positive website that doesn't have an imprint (I can find on mobile). I wouldn't bcall it research either. Summary would probably be fair.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    It contains links to the research.
    - Krasnol 5y ago
      Yeah but only where it fits the narrative which in the question of cost for example leads to this: 1) If markets valued the low-CO2 nature of nuclear, they’d be doing better 2) Multiple hypothetical approaches to reduce nuclear costs are ongoing. No one knows for sure if any of them will work, or which one will work best 3) Factory-produced large reactors on floating platforms is a surprisingly intriguing idea to make reactors cheap or: 1) make everything else more expensive so we look better 2) let me consult the magic orb because I have nothing in my hands 3) I have a nice idea Meanwhile we have HERE just another example of hilariously expensive reactor. Actual facts. Waved away with theories like "we don't have the people with experience anymore" which leaves you with the thought: should inexperienced people build nuclear reactors at all?

chabes 5y ago

Look at the situation in Ukraine. A huge problem almost nobody is talking about is the largest nuclear plant in Europe was just captured by an invading military force just over a week ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_P...