On 05/02/2017 08:55, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 4 February 2017 11:01:48 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 04-Feb-17 8:12 AM, harry wrote:
...
The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of dealing with the nuclear waste.
This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to do it.
If they did, they'd be doing it but they aren't.
It is just in temporary storage at the moment.

As you have been told many times before, this is a lie. The ways to
dispose of nuclear waste are well know, as are the costs. Storing the
waste is not only a solution, it is also the cheapest solution.


It's only in temporary storage.
They have no clue what to do with it now.
It's called kicking the problem into the long grass.
Take your pick.

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?...+nuclear+waste


£70 billion? £100 billion?
Nobody knows.
But the estimates only get bigger.
Only the brain dead fail to see this.


Yet again harry ignores that he has been told that most of the waste he
is talking about is from bomb making where they didn't really worry
about costs or doing anything for a few halflives.

Nuclear power doesn't cost anything like as much as decommissioning was
considered.