Is that because every country fails to adequately charge oil/coal/etc for its externalities? Are we essentially subsidizing oil, bringing the costs artificially low such that nuclear can't compete?

▲

Arnt 34 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Nuclear has several major cost problems if it's own. Insuring against a major accident is prohibitively expensive, the kind of inspection+maintenance regime that's necessary for safety isn't amenable to cost reductions. The list goes on. Basically:

Nuclear isn't similar to the things that grow cheaper as the operators gain experience.

▲

Llamamoe 27 minutes ago | parent [-]

Much if fhe inspections and standards aren't "necessary for safety" but the direct product of paranoia and lobbying. Nuclear is brutally overregulated, far, far beyond what's necessary to ensure safety, and that's where most costs come from.

▲

markvdb 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Then why is the insurance for every single reactor public sector based?

	▲	doctorpangloss 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Well if you're BP, and there's a oil well malfunction, you self insure.

▲

Arnt 11 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Are you saying that plutonium isn't nearly as poisonous as people claim, and watching for hairline cracks in containment walls is a waste of time?

Or something like that?

▲

elevaet an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, let's not forget defence budgets that are spent to prop up oil availability too.

	▲	genxy 38 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		War would be so much harder w/o oil, yet we fight wars for oil. Hmmm.