I am open to change my mind on this, but i never seen evidence for a single one that was profitable when you include development cost, maintenance, build back and disposal (and long term maintenance of disposal).
most of costs are costs of construction. french and koreans don’t seem discouraged and some plants in japan and china were built under budget. finland energy supply has large fraction of nuclear and they have extremely cheap electricity
Ok i gave this the benefit of the doubt and watched the whole video.
Things there where not included in the calculation:
Cost of compensating for environmental destruction from uran mines (and health care costs for thost impacted by the radio active dust from them)
Political cost of importing fissile fuel from other nations (importing from russia/usa gives russia/usa leverage over you wich then can get expensive in other parts of the economy)
Cost at end of plant life cycle, aka building it back once the structure has aged beyond what maintenance can fix
Cost of storing and maintaining radio active waste for the next few million years
The video also only compares those selective picked numbers to fossil fuels and not things like solar or wind.
This video did not change my opinion, but thanks for suggesting it.
I am open to change my mind on this, but i never seen evidence for a single one that was profitable when you include development cost, maintenance, build back and disposal (and long term maintenance of disposal).
most of costs are costs of construction. french and koreans don’t seem discouraged and some plants in japan and china were built under budget. finland energy supply has large fraction of nuclear and they have extremely cheap electricity
The costs of construction and deconstruction are significant. You cannot just ignore them. That is useless cherry picking.
OK, here’s a starting point https://youtu.be/cbeJIwF1pVY
Ok i gave this the benefit of the doubt and watched the whole video.
Things there where not included in the calculation:
Cost of compensating for environmental destruction from uran mines (and health care costs for thost impacted by the radio active dust from them)
Political cost of importing fissile fuel from other nations (importing from russia/usa gives russia/usa leverage over you wich then can get expensive in other parts of the economy)
Cost at end of plant life cycle, aka building it back once the structure has aged beyond what maintenance can fix
Cost of storing and maintaining radio active waste for the next few million years
The video also only compares those selective picked numbers to fossil fuels and not things like solar or wind.
This video did not change my opinion, but thanks for suggesting it.