|
|
|
|
|
|
by moe
5128 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.