creativename87639 t1_j6l0rp6 wrote on January 31, 2023 at 1:54 AM

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Cracking under pressure: Inside the race to fix France’s nuclear plants by DukeOfGeek

The upside is if you maintain them, which France did not do which is why they’re having issues, you get near 100 years of clean, cheap, safe and efficient energy and you creat a shit load of jobs with it.

PrettyLittlePsycho16 t1_j6liwwm wrote on January 31, 2023 at 4:15 AM

Not cheap at all taking investment and maintenance costs as well as safe disposal into account. If it wasn't for subsidiaries no one in the right mind would invest in these. The amortization is terrible if you have to pay for everything yourself. Aside from that, France as far as reports revealed is already running low on storage capacity, with closed cycle processes still being far from sufficient to compensate for this.

creativename87639 t1_j6ljly6 wrote on January 31, 2023 at 4:22 AM

It’s literally one of the cheapest per KWh and is getting cheaper. Everyone who is familiar with the nuclear industry knows that “safe disposal” is a literal non issue that gets talked about a lot. In fact waste is so small that in the US all high level waste is stored on site. And nuclear power is not subsidized.

The only real issue with modern reactors is initial cost, building the plant is really expensive due to regulations (no I’m not saying de-regulate). Yes they need to be maintained but so does everything, and when maintained they outlive any current form of energy.

PrettyLittlePsycho16 t1_j6lm0yr wrote on January 31, 2023 at 4:43 AM

Oh, then I guess every single assessment released in Europe was wrong because of different storage procedures in the US.