> <Nuclear power is a relatively simple process>
>
> In theory, yes. But that theory is contradicted by all experience. When theory and facts don't match, I go with the facts.
>
> <cost per kWh, of Construction, Production and De-commissioning, it seems that NUCLEAR comes to about 4 US cents/kWh>
>
> No, it doesn't. Not even close. The only way to arrive at such optimistic numbers, is to make very optimistic
> assumptions, and ignore the actual track record of the industry. I know how this is done: assume the nukes
> are running near-100% of the time, assume no accidents, assume de-commissioning costs a tiny fraction of
> what they actually are, assume no changes in environmental regulations, totally ignore the cost of LT
> disposal of nuclear waste (it's the government's problem), don't include the government subsidies
> (insurance, etc.) in your cost estimates.
I think the "actual track record of the (nuclear) industry" is not very relevant (except for rhetorical purposes) because most nuclear plants in operation are decades old and based on designs from 1950's and 60's.
Today nobody would build these kinds of reactors.
Nuclear industry is not the only industry hiding the true cost (e.g. getting gov subsidies). If I build a coal-fired power plant and you get sick (here ucsusa.org
is a list of the stuff they produce) and go to the doctor/hospital, I am not going to pay for that. You will (through your insurance) or government will (Medicare). Basically, I get a free ride at your expense.
Over the last 50 years, coal (used by power plants) has killed a lot more people (orders of magnitude more) than nuclear power. However, coal does it quietly, every day, 24-hours a day, whereas
nuclear accidents (with fatalities) happen once during many years and do all the killing at once (thus generating headlines and getting lots of attention).
|
