|
|
|
|
|
by pdonis
1392 days ago
|
|
> I assume people are still building those things If you mean older reactor designs without the passive safety features I mentioned, I don't think the US is building much of anything. > and I also bet they require some regular amount of maintenance. Nuclear reactors of course require regular maintenance, like any large industrial plant, but those costs alone are not a significant impact. To the extent there are increased maintenance costs for nuclear, they are more than offset by lower fuel costs. Operating costs in general for nuclear reactors are a significantly smaller fraction of total life cycle costs than for fossil fuels. The largest ongoing cost for a nuclear plant is usually the amortization of the initial capital investment, which is larger for nuclear because the plant has extra requirements like secondary containment and radiation shielding that aren't present in fossil fuel plants. |
|
> If you mean older reactor designs without the passive safety features I mentioned, I don't think the US is building much of anything.
No, I mean the new ones you mention, people will make mistakes building the new ones, including the failsafes, regardless of the physics.
> Nuclear reactors of course require regular maintenance, like any large industrial plant, but those costs alone are not a significant impact.
It's not the cost I'm responding to, but more the idea that human error will be entirely removed. People will be responsible for that maintenance, they will screw it up.