3 ms·
2 billion GBP in yearly maintenance for a site that hasn't produced electricity since 2003. And the consequences of not paying are so severe that neighboring co
by Kon5ole 3y ago
2 billion GBP in yearly maintenance for a site that hasn't produced electricity since 2003. And the consequences of not paying are so severe that neighboring countries are talking about volunteering money to the upkeep.
And the consumers thought they got "cheap electricity". Even worse, some consumers today still believe they get cheap electricity from nuclear!
- goodSteveramos 3y agoThe waste in question is NOT from civilian power reactors on the site. Its from the separation of plutonium for the manufacture of weapons. If you dont want plutonium waste then dont make weapons. This is NOT an argument against nuclear power.
- Kon5ole 3y agoOf course it is an argument! It shows that humans can’t be trusted to keep dangerous things safe over a long period of time, and also shows that the cost of nuclear power has been much higher than any published estimates have ever taken into account. Sellafield is one example of this problem, in Germany you have Asse II if you want another, and Germany has no nuclear weapons.