[moe]

Those fuckers even create more radioactive waste (which won't get collected) when they work as intended, than nuclear plants when they break down.

How about reading your own linked article before making a fool of yourself with claims like that? It says coal plants create more radioactive waste than a nuclear plant that has not broken down.

[ori_b]

It's true for common failure modes. Three Mile Island, for example, did leak less radioactive waste than a correctly working coal plant.

The problem is that it's so politically difficult to build new nuclear plants so that old ones can be retired, that we're still using poorly designed plants from the 1960s that are already past their design lifetime. And then people are surprised that they're problematic.

[fabjan]

The reason we're still using the old plants is because even wind power is cheaper per watt hour than a modern nuclear plant.

Finland is building one at the moment. At $4.1 billion it's now 50% over budget.

[ori_b]

Your numbers are incorrect. The cost for nuclear is cheaper than oil and gas, and only somewhat more expensive than coal, when factoring in the full lifecycle costs.

And Finland's reactor is remarkably cheap, if it only cost $4.1B. I believe typical plants cost closer to $10B. Nuclear plants are not cheap to build.

[moe]

The cost for nuclear is cheaper than oil and gas

That's a lie.

The equation breaks down when you factor in any of the following:

A) Waste handling and disposal

B) Reactor upgrades and replacement on a sane schedule (i.e. more frequently than the current ~35 years)

C) Hardening against deliberate attacks such as airplanes

or

D) A single catastrophic event due to continued negligence of B and C

The nuclear industry operates on the premise of being able to push the cost for all of the above upon society at some indefinite point in the future (cf. Fukushima). You may or may not agree with that approach (i.e. you could argue "it's worth it"), but let's not drink their kool-aid please.

[ori_b]

If you didn't factor those in, then the cost would be almost nothing, even when compared to coal. Almost all the cost of nuclear power is in the construction and decommissioning.

When you factor those in, it becomes more expensive than coal, and slightly cheaper than oil or gas.

Also, airplanes pack very little punch compared to other things like internal steam buildup that plants are already hardened against. In a properly designed plant, you get airplane tolerance effectively for free.

[moe]

When you factor those in, it becomes more expensive than coal, and slightly cheaper than oil or gas.

And that magic knowledge you take from... where?

Last time I checked there was no solution to the waste issue; we simply have no idea what to do with it in the long term. Meanwhile in most countries the transport and "temporary" storage of the waste are conveniently paid for by the tax-payer.

Last time I checked most reactors are destined to be running for 40 years. Except when, like in USA and France, they decide to extend that to 60 years. So much for replacing ancient reactors with safer designs.

Last time I checked most reactors were not hardened against deliberate attacks. And Fukushima was supposed to be one of the few specially hardened sites - we have seen how that went.

In a properly designed plant, you get airplane tolerance effectively for free.

Bullshit.

[bad_alloc]

Okay the reactor core MIGHT sill be contained but you still probably have a huge fire, inaccessible critical machinery and tons of damage to other essential equipment surrounding the reactor, like coolant valves. Besides, if you avoid the reinforced reactor and take out, say the control room or a cooling tower you can cause enough damage to shut down the power plant for some years.