-
Running the plants longer is, when you look at setup and closedown, a tiny incremental cost. You don’t escape the shutdown costs by closing the plant 6 years early (or whatever).
And unlike gas you can buy uranium from the Aussies.
Dammit-
unlike gas you can buy uranium from the Aussies
Who's buying all our gas then? We're bloody giving it away for fuck-all, shitloads of it.
-
What if the front falls off?
-
It seems logical that the worst thing you can do is build then not fully use them. All the capital expense, most of the issues and risks, but less power output that has to be filled by another source.
I also find it hard to believe that the world would be in a worst place in 50 years time if nuclear power replaced coal power 50 years ago. Not that I think nuclear is without it's major issues, just that we are looking pretty fucked as it is.
Kimmo
itsbruce
dst2
No, after phasing out nuclear power plants in Germany, the vast majority of cost lies still ahead. Demolishing those reactors and storing the nuclear waste will cost billions. The main players like RWE in Germany are already trying to get out of their contractual obligations to bear these costs.
Moreover, if you criticize the dependence on Russian gas, you must also criticize the same dependence on uranium. More than 20 per cent of uranium came from Russia and another 20 per cent from Putin's then ally Kazakhstan. With Rosatom Russia is also one of the leading suppliers of nuclear power plants worldwide. Phasing out nuclear power therefore means reducing dependence on Russia.