Fitz wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:

snip stuff about carbon

It's a great shame that successive governments in many countries have wasted
more than a generation (probably two) through not pursuing nuclear power
generation and the technology behind it.

Do you (or indeed others) include the costs of decommisioning plants
and long term storage of waste in the overall running costs of the
industry?

That's a genuine question by the way. I've always been against
nuclear, partly because of the long term legacy of the waste but mostly
on the basis that it appeared to be immensley expensive in total, but
the majority of that cost was hidden by the decomissioning costs being
'disregarded' or squirreled away somehow.

Ever thought about the decommissioning cost of coal slag heaps? Aberfan
springs to mind...or the decommissioning costs of all the gas and oil
fired power stations in the world...New Orleans springs to mind.


Anyone who is actually HONEST about the true global costs of energy
production, will rapidly see that nuclear is a lot cleaner, and a lot
cheaper in the long run.

First and second generation reactors were built partly experimentally,
partly to make weapons grade fuel, and never with the cost of
decommissioning to an absurdly stringent level of radioactive leakage,
with no one prepared to countenance it within a 1000 miles of their
homes.. in mind.