And why are we comparing to fossil fuel plants as opposed to other renewable sources which are cheaper, safer, and less polluting than nuclear?
The problem for nuclear is that if you are making a pollution based safety argument for it, the obvious question is why not spend the money you would on nuclear in more cost effective and equally green or greener alternatives (ones which lack a doomsday scenario as a bonus).
In reality, nuclear sucks up a lot of green capital for 8-10 years at a minimum, under delivers, if it delivers at all, and does so at an extremely high price.
There are new nuclear technologies that have the potential to be cost competitive with other renewables, but they aren’t production ready yet. Why not make these arguments when those technologies are ready.
Unfortunately there is no solution on the near horizon for large scale grid storage of intermittent renewables. I would argue nuclear is our only choice. I made a comment here linking sources on the problems facing grid storage: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26348355
The problem for nuclear is that if you are making a pollution based safety argument for it, the obvious question is why not spend the money you would on nuclear in more cost effective and equally green or greener alternatives (ones which lack a doomsday scenario as a bonus).
In reality, nuclear sucks up a lot of green capital for 8-10 years at a minimum, under delivers, if it delivers at all, and does so at an extremely high price.
There are new nuclear technologies that have the potential to be cost competitive with other renewables, but they aren’t production ready yet. Why not make these arguments when those technologies are ready.