3 ms·

I think the issues you list for nuclear are exaggerated. The real problem is the cost and complexity of construction, which could be solved with mini reactors w

I think the issues you list for nuclear are exaggerated. The real problem is the cost and complexity of construction, which could be solved with mini reactors where the technology is still not quite there for mass production. The licensing is also a problem at least in some countries, as getting a permit is very difficult it makes sense to only build massive power plants.

Quarrelsome 4y ago
> I think the issues you list for nuclear are exaggerated. I don't. Current estimates for the dismantlement of Sellafield in the UK is £121 billion and that figure is likely somewhat lower than the final cost. Given that most proposals are created in order to be accepted there is a high chance the total costs of the plant (including decommissioning) are understated. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/15/dismantling-sellafield-epic-task-shutting-down-decomissioned-nuclear-site https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/15/dismantl...
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  Reading the article, you can see why it's not an honest example to back up your point. Sellafield was built partly without decommissioning in mind, it was originally used for something else (making plutonium for weapons) and still has 140 tonnes of that plutonium on site. It was built with world war 3 in mind. It's not a modern nuclear reactor. Sellafield has more unknowns that most, but I doubt it's been underbid. I think nuclear proposals undergo a great deal of scrutiny and are some of the most cost-complete in existence. Hinkley Point C in the UK, its masterful government negotiation aside, has I believe a total lifetime cost of around £40bn.