4 ms·

I don't think that's fair. Anti-nuclear comments also widely ignore the fiscal risks and focus on the obvious issues. Most people probably don't know about the

• cycomanic 3y ago
  I think that's not entirely true. Much of the discussion about nuclear has shifted away from the usual talking points and shifted towards costs. The primary argument against nuclear made here on HN is cost.
  • mschuster91 3y ago
    > The primary argument against nuclear made here on HN is cost. Because it's the easiest one to make, and most importantly, the easiest one to prove. Talking about cancer rates and whatnot, there's many a way to debate oneself to death about which study has greater trustability... but no way around the numbers: dealing with the waste is expensive, acquiring the fuel is expensive (and incredibly damaging to the environment), constructing NPPs is expensive and a multi-decade project, operating them is expensive, insuring them is expensive (or one runs the Soviet Russia model and has the government/tax payer as the insurance of last resort), keeping them and the fuel secure is expensive (which is an issue with the much-hyped small reactors - a prime target for any terrorist looking for some material for a dirty bomb), and taking them apart is expensive. Nuclear power is only so "cheap" because of the extremely long life of a NPP and because a lot of the mentioned expensive parts has been externalized or not properly accounted for at all.
• hgomersall 3y ago
  The "financial" issues in this context is just a placeholder for "shit loads of resources". As always with spending at the state level, the billions needed are just representative of the opportunity cost.