Quote from: Erik on March 07, 2022, 23:33:17
The whole issue with nuclear is the long term storage and the actual operation costs when you facture everything from the building of the nuclear plant to the structure that will have to store its waste for thousands of years.
While nuclear power stations aren't cheap, the electricity they produce is dirt cheap compared to the electricity from gas power stations at current prices in the EU. And in general, their problem is the capital cost, not the running cost. One advantage of nuclear power is that the cost of generating electricity is highly stable and predictable once the station is operational. And when it comes to green house gases, even after including all the concrete and everything, it's superb and only solar can compete with wind a fairly close third (assuming "green" electricity is used in the manufacture of the solar panels). Hydro is surprisingly bad. Gas might be relatively good compared to coal but it's not even playing the same sport as these three.
Nuclear is just unpopular among many people and has been for decades. Which is a problem because the uncertain future has been making financing very expensive and research also isn't where it should be (why research something that won't be used). The cost of financing is very important, it makes a big chunk of the cost and the chunk can get huge. You end up paying for expensive nuclear energy because banks see it as risky business (a government could decide to shut you down at any time, etc.). Because of the high capital expenditure, nuclear power stations are very sensitive to interest rates and therefore any delays in construction. Solar doesn't have this problem. Essentially, to build a nuclear power station is a strategic decision. They are not influenced by gas/ coal/ oil prices or weather. And that's worth paying for. They are also "energy dense," taking up fairly little space given the output. The fuel is energy dense, you can have a large stock of energy.