Just in case anyone here still thinks nuclear is viable.
What I actually agree with the nukes is the insanity of only 3% burnup of the nuclear fuel. It could be way over that with fuel breeding. Yet that 3% burnup contains so much energy a plant can run 6kk to a year before they need to do any fuel shufling. So the fuel is cheap, but operating the plant is not. The safety standard and buerocracy is too high due to the fear mongering which is currently self-reinforcing. (Thought I wish no more PWRs would be needed, since if one pops it’ll be an another fukushima. Nervously looking at OL3 5GW thermal/1.6GW that thing is way too big of a unit)
Nuclear is economic in that it is good for the people and the world but it is not economic in that capitalists can reliably profit off of it
You know what’s actually not viable?
Burning fossil fuels still the earth is a cinder. But god forbid we don’t make shareholders happy.
It’s not really a debate about continuing to rely on fossil fuels. For context, in Australia the conservative coalition (for some reason) has an idealogical bee in its bonnet about investing more heavily in renewable energy sources, instead arguing that nuclear energy production is the way of the future.
It’s all projects to corrupt. it’s something their friends and ideological peers can own and control, unlike solar and wind. Big contracts! Import restrictions! Waste burial to place somewhere, threatening the suburbs into tolerating more abuse of aboriginal history.
Not that arguing against solar energy in fucking Australia will convince anyone with two brain cells and a drip of dignity. Giant empty sandpaper cutout that you are, crinkled at the edges with civilization.
Uneconomic compared to what?
Not a single number on what current fossil fuel subsidies and climate damage cost, and not a single figure for the cost of alternative methods.
Not to mention much of the cost is due to regulatory burdens. It was economically viable 40 years ago. Not that all regulation is bad. But we made it uneconomical.
