Andy Champ wrote:
tim.... wrote:

For me it's the (apparent) completely open ended costs of disposal.
If the private sector is going to be allowed to build nuclear power
stations they have to factor in the total cost of decommissioning into
their kWh price, but they can't.



I don't think there are any energy sources that are adequate for our
civilisation and are factoring in the true costs. Nuclear is closer
than most.

No fossil fuel system is factoring in the costs of the environmental
damage that most people accept is being caused by uncontrolled release
of carbon dioxide and other pollutants.

Andy

Exactly.

The green position is 'all pollution Bad. So, no nuclear no fossil, =no
people.

Cos the job cant be done with current levels of population AND totally
renewable technology.

Energy s all about turning low entropy materials (coal, gas, oil,
uranium) into high entropy waste (hot carbon dioxide, hot air, hot
radioactive materials).

Its always been a source of mystery to me why a dirty radioactive planet
will be 'saved' by using JUST the energy off a dirty radioactive
sun...that is anything BUT renewable.