Look, I love nuclear technology. But time has moved on. The costs to rebuild this industry is astronomical and means we lose out on key-future technology like batteries.

Edit: But then there are bombs. And especially French love their nukes due national security. This is the only reason to keep pushing for nuclear, since Russia, the US and China are not gonna change direction on this either. But the very least we could do is be honest about it.

Edit 2: Changed from "World has moved on" to "time has moved on", since evidently China has invested for a good 2 decades to build their own fully functional nuclear-industry. Proving my point that it takes dedicated investment, network effects and scale to rebuild this industry. After all, they too want to mass produce nukes.

We pay less in practice than the rates given above for power, because the government also subsidizes it. But even without that I understand such rates would be relatively cheap in most European countries.

I suspect the UK will only build the nuclear capacity required to keep the industry around on national security grounds.

If you take as axioms:

1) Countries have major political interest in whether other countries have nuclear reactors

2) Countries are already, at large scale, manipulating discourse across the internet to achieve their political goals

Then of course it follows that any comment thread on a semi-popular or higher site about whether a country should build more nuclear reactors is going to be heavily manipulated by said countries. That's where (most) of the insane people in such threads are probably coming from.

How are we supposed to survive as a civilization with such corrupted channels of communication?

>... composed of representatives from employers' associations, workers' unions (trade unions) and civil society organisations.

I'm not sure how up they are on technical issues like the rapid progress in batteries and solar and the like.

Hinkley C in the UK was approved in 2016 and probably will be producing in 2031 so 15 years on. (cost ~£40bn). In the last 15 years the cost of battery storage and of solar panels have both fallen about 10x. If that goes on they will be much cheaper but the time nuclear comes online.

Here are some sources of information that helped me understand the two oft-cited nuclear disasters better.

The World Nuclear Energy write up on the Fukushima incident: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-sec...

Some information on the Chernobyl incident: The infographics show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uJhjqBz5Tk

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-sec...

A lecture in the MIT Courseware on the incident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ijst4g5KFN0

This lecture is way more informative where the professor explains how the workers took the system beyond the rated capacity as part of a test.

There have been many lessons learned, and the World Nuclear article linked above shares some of these.

Here is a writeup of the Three Mile Island incident: https://world-nuclear.org/Information-Library/Safety-and-Sec...

One regular complaint is the costs of nuclear energy. This is likely true in the US due to regulations that have not been revised for newer technology, but such high costs are cited around the world.

Likewise, the amount of waste and the danger of the waste is not well understood either, and certainly lots of education is needed here. For e.g., most people do not know that the volume of waste is limited and that the same waste can be reused in reactors of other designs.

I do believe that national ego issues get in the way of fixes. I believe that such ego issues got in the way of honest repairs (Fukushima) and timely action (Chernobyl). Certainly, nuclear inspections are still treated with suspicion and hostility, but in fact full transparency and integrity should be the norm.

Corruption and profit-centric thinking are two other problems that plague the nuclear industry. South Korea has had lots of corruption and shortcuts (https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/04/22/136020/how-greed...). One of the accusations in India against France was that France licenses outdated nuclear reactor technology despite having newer technology. I am unable to locate a link supporting this accusation.

With thorium reactors and Small Module Reactors, there are many modern solutions to safety.

ThorCon's Thorium Converter Reactor - Lars Jorgensen in Bali https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB1IrzDDI9g

Here is the full training by Thorcon on their reactors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkvEXm-rMW4&list=PLuGiwaUJYE...

We need to stop citing and quoting US-based costs and problems that are linked to outdated US regulations. There are other countries that have more modern regulations and modern technologies.

Anyways, solar is also cheaper

Where is the fossile fuel being burnt?

It’s uncanny how the narrative rhymes: we have insanely capable portable computing devices at price points that are accessible to every person across the planet. Similarly, distributed generation (and storage) are already bringing electricity to people who have no real chance of being on the grid ever.

I see no way the economics working out for nuclear, except for niche uses.

I can even imagine the grid being something relegated for long range / high intensity applications (instead of household distribution) in a few hundred years

Honestly the main part about nuclear energy is dependence.

In Germany we saw how well that played out in 2022 when Russian gas stopped flowing.

There is a shit ton of innovation around battery technologies, extending the grid and behind the meter micro-grids.

A more diversified, autonomous (as in, wind, solar) energy supply beats Nuclear in terms of national security and long term viability any day.

When you look at the data though, its political fallout was much worse than the actual toll on human life, etc. Fukushima released a small about of radiation into the environment. But modern reactors don’t have the same runaway reactivity flaws that Chernobyl did.

Not zero risk. But not the level of risk resulting in half a continent potentially being uninhabitable.