Nuclear is most probably NOT "economical where you live" because the nuclear industry is very good at
"externalising" all those other costs. I'd rather the money go into Australia's health system or use it to educate my kids than provide a subsidy to a form of energy I don't like very much (except for space use).
Again you've resorted to emotive language and assertions, without peer-reviewed research that accounts for ALL the "externalities" (such as tax payers picking up the tab for decommissioning costs).
Please don't put me into the category of an unthinking greenie that just hates nuclear because it "might go off or something!" Yes I'm concerned about the potential for disasters, but that's not the main reason. Yes I'm concerned about what rogue states might get up to, but that's not the main reason. The main reason is that I'd rather see the money go into wind and solar power (where appropriate) RIGHT NOW because they're faster to deploy and scale economically. Build em small, and they're expensive! Build them big and they could be very competitive, and there's NO risk if a 747 flies into them. Zilch. A few thousand mirrors have to be replaced, big deal.
So, if we can see a paper that analyses ALL the costs please? I keep on asking, and am sharing links to authorities that have shaped my view on this. Why can't you? Just saying "But I've got some down the road!" doesn't prove a damn thing at all.
You also haven't answered my questions about any recent papers analysing the cost benefits of breeder reactors.
Here's an example where the "externalities" caught up with the government. When one gets too excited about "breeder reactors" it seems one ends up with a
Nuclear Wonderland!
SNR-300 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
The fast breeder nuclear reactor SNR-300 was built near the town of Kalkar, Germany (located in the federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia. It was completed but never taken online. It is known as one of the biggest government spending boondoggles in Germany. SNR-300 was to output 327 megawatt. The project ended up costing about 7 billion Deutsche Mark (about. 3,5 Billion Euro or over 4 billion USD). Klaus Traube, then director of the executing company Interatom, is today one of the most prominent German opponents of the usage of nuclear power.
1995: The site is bought by a Dutch developer and transformed into an amusement park named Kernwasser Wunderland ("Nuclearwater wonderland"). It includes a hotel with 400 beds. In 2005 it was renamed into Wunderland Kalkar ("Wonderland Kalkar")."
|
