51 ms·
It would be irononic for the government to subsidize something that they've significantly contributed to increasing the cost of.
by willnonya 4y ago
It would be irononic for the government to subsidize something that they've significantly contributed to increasing the cost of.
- dale_glass 4y agoA huge amount of the cost increases are there to make it actually safe. Windscale could have been cheaper, but some jerk called Cockfort insisted on additional filters just in case -- oh wait, that "Cockfort's folly" turned what could have been a horrifying accident into a merely bad one. Chernobyl was cheap, but it didn't have a containment building. Modern nuclear is safer, but that cost more money. Nuclear needs emergency cooling to be safe, which costs more money. It needs redundancy, which costs more. And so on. So what is it exactly what you think needs cutting?