[erentz]

Plus the point about lifespan, the nuclear plant doesn’t need to be replaced in 25 years. You get twice the lifespan for the same cost.

[natmaka]

Nuke decommission costs and impacts aren't neglectable, and may be underestimated (the UK case showed it clearly).

[lostlogin]

Would I be right in thinking that replacing parts of a solar plant could be done without a huge impact on production? Eg replacing a reactor means it’s offline. Replacing all the panels means a percentage of the plant is offline at a given time.

[nl]

Yes, and panels are getting cheaper continually.

Once the tax effectiveness of being able to depreciate the panels gets taken into account it's a pretty nice investment.

[fomine3]

From Japan, I wish the old plant was replaced after 30 years...