> If nuclear could compete on cost, we should go for it, but it can't without a major tech breakthrough.
Fusion perhaps. But fission, patently untrue. The price of existing nuclear fission power plants is artificially high because politicians want weapons grade nuclear material, ill-informed "public opinion" and regulation.
And to qualify my "ill-informed public opinion", Chernobyl's direct death toll was 31. Fukishima was zero. Yet nuclear is held to some different standard to all other energy. A nuclear accident, with zero deaths is front page news but the millions of people that have died world wide from burning or mining coal, or drilling for oil, isn't.
The design of nuclear reactors is uranium based, and over 50 years old.
There's no commercial incentive to make better, cheaper nuclear fission power plants because Governments won't let anyone try. Search for 'nuclear startup' and they're all fusion. Making France (EDF) or Japan (Hitachi?) compete 'on tender' to build the UK a new power station is not really competition unfortunately.
Fusion perhaps. But fission, patently untrue. The price of existing nuclear fission power plants is artificially high because politicians want weapons grade nuclear material, ill-informed "public opinion" and regulation.
And to qualify my "ill-informed public opinion", Chernobyl's direct death toll was 31. Fukishima was zero. Yet nuclear is held to some different standard to all other energy. A nuclear accident, with zero deaths is front page news but the millions of people that have died world wide from burning or mining coal, or drilling for oil, isn't.
The design of nuclear reactors is uranium based, and over 50 years old.
There's no commercial incentive to make better, cheaper nuclear fission power plants because Governments won't let anyone try. Search for 'nuclear startup' and they're all fusion. Making France (EDF) or Japan (Hitachi?) compete 'on tender' to build the UK a new power station is not really competition unfortunately.