[flagged]
https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-u...
It's a pity -- if we had kept up the pace, we'd already have completely decarbonized our grid, but instead we are barely starting. Ah well. At least solar and wind finally became economical. Any path forward is a good path, even if it's 50 years late.
Nuclear relies on the same subsystems, and it’s unlikely they’ll get significantly cheaper any time soon.
Having said that, I think nuclear could be made cost-competitive with coal and natural gas, at least in theory. Also, it’s unclear that we’ll be able to build a reliable, net carbon negative power grid without a large number of nuclear plants.
Do the actual math on what it takes to get a reliable solar kWh onto the grid and suddenly it's a lot more expensive.
They reuse blueprints, and make use of interchangeable parts, unlike the US nuclear. As a bonus, they can train people once, then transfer them between identical nuclear plants. Also, if there is a near miss at one plant, they apply the safety upgrades to the whole fleet.
I believe it was Mill who insisted that one should be able to argue the other side of a topic as well as the one they prefer :)
> They reuse blueprints, and make use of interchangeable parts, unlike the US nuclear. As a bonus, they can train people once, then transfer them between identical nuclear plants. Also, if there is a near miss at one plant, they apply the safety upgrades to the whole fleet.
That all sounds good as a first impression, but I've learned to ask: Are those the primary bottlenecks and costs?