Building nuclear in a country with proper safety standards and everything is insanely expensive, where did you get the idea that it’s the “best bang for the buck”? There are always cost overruns and they tend to be a multiple of the original project cost estimate.
Also you need to keep buying/extracting nuclear fuel to run a nuclear power plant… With solar, the sun is the fuel! With no buying or extracting, it removes a big ongoing cost from the equation and significantly improves self-reliance. I don’t understand how this seems to not communicate to people.
A good chunk of the cost of a nuclear plant is all the steam driven turbines and power infrastructure. That’s already there in a retrofitted coal plant. And even without that, nuclear is cheaper in the long run. And even without that, not everything is about the god damned money.
Nah, convert it to nuclear
I would have suggested that as its the best bang for the buck. But people lose their mind when its on the table…
Building nuclear in a country with proper safety standards and everything is insanely expensive, where did you get the idea that it’s the “best bang for the buck”? There are always cost overruns and they tend to be a multiple of the original project cost estimate.
Also you need to keep buying/extracting nuclear fuel to run a nuclear power plant… With solar, the sun is the fuel! With no buying or extracting, it removes a big ongoing cost from the equation and significantly improves self-reliance. I don’t understand how this seems to not communicate to people.
A good chunk of the cost of a nuclear plant is all the steam driven turbines and power infrastructure. That’s already there in a retrofitted coal plant. And even without that, nuclear is cheaper in the long run. And even without that, not everything is about the god damned money.
You want nuclear plant and natural disaster to meet each other?