[est31]

Well the currently deployed, old nuclear plants certainly aren't as safe as the new, unbuilt ones the nuclear proponents always like to showcase. Even if you decide towards using nuclear in the future, you should build new reactors from scratch using those new safer designs.

[wolfram74]

There's that branch of minimalist environmentalism where their favorite nuclear reactor is whatever doesn't already exist. The instant it starts getting built, /somebody'll/ start protesting it.

[pvaldes]

> The instant it starts getting built, /somebody'll/ start protesting it.

Is normal when the hype does not correspond with the reality and the promises of behaving well and to be responsible are replaced by "hide under a rug and find a scapegoat" five seconds after having the green light.

Citizens have the right to ask about how their taxes had been spent, specially when the construction costs increased exponentially, the whole structure is ruinous after 50 years and there are lots of new surprises in tiny characters in an appendix of the social contract that they signed, but never received.

Nuclear plants can only make a limited amount of money in this lifetime but the cost seems almost unlimited.

[est31]

Of course there will always be a better and safer design. But what about replacing the 50 year old designs currently deployed now with recent ones?

[xupybd]

Can we afford to do that?

We have finite resources. If prevention of a disastrous change in climate is your goal does it make sense to replace the older plants?

Yes it would be safer to do so but would the cost be worth it?

[Aeronwen]

They angry mob will refuse to let you build the replacement, and demand the old one be torn down since you admitted it's so unsafe.