That didn’t really answer the question. It was just a blanket statement that it’d be a bad idea.
The links all just point to trends. The inventory just says the way things are. And then a map of actual plans? Who asked about actual plans?
That wasn’t the question at hand. The fundamental question at hand was the difference between old versus new nuclear technology, whether or not whatever the actual plans are.
But yeah, just drop links and say no. Really great. Top notch discussion.
Several of the links I posted explain that new reactor designs were used, and that estimated cost overruns exceeded almost $15 billion in some cases (South Carolina). Can you be more specific about what evidence you're looking for that nuclear, built today, isn't cost effective besides the various citations I've provided? I've provided more information below, and if that isn't sufficient, feel free to email me with additional questions. The TLDR is "Nuclear kept getting more expensive, renewables plummeted in price, and the growth of energy demand in first world countries plateaued".
> The first generation of nuclear power plants proved so costly to build that half of them were abandoned during construction. Those that were completed saw huge cost overruns, which were passed on to utility customers in the form of rate increases. By 1985, Forbes had labeled U.S. nuclear power "the largest managerial disaster in business history.”
> The industry has failed to prove that things will be different this time around: soaring, uncertain costs continue to plague nuclear power in the 21st century. Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 UCS report, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar.
Feel free to read the entire blog post to understand exactly why nuclear is so expensive it can't be built. There is also a link to a report the UCS published in 2009 and a financial analysis published in 2011 that goes into great detail.
It's no use saying it would be great in theory if it turns out not to work or be cost effective in practice. This problem dogs a lot of technologies but nuclear has a particularly bad case of making promises that it doesn't meet in practice.
The links all just point to trends. The inventory just says the way things are. And then a map of actual plans? Who asked about actual plans?
That wasn’t the question at hand. The fundamental question at hand was the difference between old versus new nuclear technology, whether or not whatever the actual plans are.
But yeah, just drop links and say no. Really great. Top notch discussion.