3 ms·
> ‘best option,’ per Indian Point nuclear plant owner Lies. Cheapest option. This is precisely why nuclear power is dead: operators don't want to foot the cost
by Maursault 4y ago
> ‘best option,’ per Indian Point nuclear plant owner
Lies. Cheapest option. This is precisely why nuclear power is dead: operators don't want to foot the cost. They just want the profits of operating without any of the responsibilities of building plants nor dealing with waste. And for good reason: these two major costs make nuclear energy somewhere between unprofitable and economically unviable.
Fix this, pro nukes, you can have all the nuclear energy you want. Make it profitable or please stop.
- mindslight 4y agoPlease read the engineering report linked elsewhere in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35208699 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35208699 There are no zero impact options here. The report is a bit hyperbolic on the other options (storing it for 787 years would be a 1/2^64 reduction which seems unnecessarily long), but overall eminently reasonable. I agree with where you're coming from - companies creating environmental disasters/harm, walking away with profits, while leaving everyone else to suffer their externalities. But this does not appear to be that.