Also a different angle - economics. If you take 20 years to build a reactor, then the interest that investment assuming an 5% YoY, would be ~2.7x the original purchase price. Your yearly profits wont be enough to pay the interest at that point.

You are right - by these standards it makes no economic sense to build a nuclear reactor, but the standards only exist because of the positively lethargic Western work moral.

▲

pfdietz 3 days ago | parent [-]

It's never nuclear's fault, is it? Like communism to the true believer, nuclear can never fail, it can only be failed. There's always an excuse.

I think the world has grown tired of the excuses and has largely moved on. You laggards will be coming along soon enough.

	▲	torginus 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		You seem to misunderstand me - I'm not some nuclear fanboy, but I'm looking for a powerplant solution that's 3 things: universal (unlike hydro), always available (unlike renewables) and sustainable (unlike gas and coal). It seems that with SMRs, nuclear is finally getting to that state. I would like to ask you - what is your problem with it? For me I wouldn't like to live next to a nuclear power plant, but I'd overwhelmingly prefer living there compared to a chemical plant - and there are a lot more of those everywhere. Plants are huge investment of time and effort and I believe the costs mainly come down sabotage to pearl clutchers like the Greenpeace folks who think every plant is going to turn into Chernobyl, bureaucrats with their own loyalties and agendas of preserving a lucrative status quo and a huge civilizational laziness in the West results in a lack of will to get together and see things through in a timely manner.