[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.

[ori_b]

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

Studying the viability of, of all things, solar power, and comparing the costs of various competing technologies. (The school I studied at is quite involved in solar research. It's price needs to drop by a significant factor before it becomes competitive, but it's on the way.)

> Bullshit

To borrow your words: "And that magic knowledge you take from... where?"

When you design a reactor to take the rather substantial internal steam explosions (and the associated water hammer) that might happen in a complete failure scenario, you end up with quite a solid building.

[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.

[ori_b]

Right. You can cause a good deal of power loss and property damage. It would be costly.