Hacker News Reader

Research results are portable.

Every single nuke put into commercial operation, since the first, has depended for continued viability on coercion, either by direct taxpayer-funded handouts or by overcharging ratepayers in captive markets, usually both. There is no reasonable prospect for improvement.

Nukes were always the most expensive choice, and are less competitive now than ever before.

View on HN

I can only assume you are heavily invested in natural gas. The Diablo Canyon plant in CA has a cost basis around 10c per kWh, which covers all expenses including reactor construction, fueling, waste disposal, maintenance, operation, and decommissioning.

And indemnification? No, that is picked by taxpayers. And, steam turbine maintenance? Doubting. I know that they are not paying into a disposal fund anymore, and are instead actually getting massive payouts, a product of a dodgy lawsuit.

(Court decided the feds had no actual plans for disposal, and therefore the money for that was collected fraudulently and had to be given back: NOT to ratepayers, of course, but to operators of still-running plants.)

Basically you're saying that Nuclear energy bad. No fix. Trust me.

Nuclear energy found to be far from cost effective, less so every year. Ten year prospect not looking good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com