4 ms·
That argument doesn't make sense. Nuclear power plants are capital intensive; countries that would have a higher tolerance for safety and environmental shortfal
by cpleppert 4y ago
That argument doesn't make sense. Nuclear power plants are capital intensive; countries that would have a higher tolerance for safety and environmental shortfalls would find nuclear power too capital intensive to be financially viable.
- Jedd 4y agoAll? And all equally? That's where the original argument fails to compel. There's ~ 50 countries with nuclear reactors, and about 30 with nuclear power plants. (Australia's an example of having one reactor, for research, but not wanting any for power production.) Anyway, it's unlikely those 32 countries that have nuclear fission power plant, which presumably is a subset of countries that could build them today, all have near-identical regulatory / process requirements that in turn are the reason they're uneconomical to build there.