I read the papers, and don't see anyone applying for permission to build replacements for the nuclear plants that are being decomissioned. Why not?
My guess is that the taxpayers won't insure nuclear generation against accidents/cleanup anymore. (There are also rules that would need to be changed, but those rules have been changed before.) It might be possible to get permission to build nuclear plant if the operator has liability insurance and a safe way to store the waste, but not without that.
And AFAICT, if the investors/operators need to pay for insurance and waste disposal, then nuclear power is too expensive compared to either building spare wind/sun capacity, learning to limit electricity use, or a combination.
I'd be happy to learn better. But these "thinktank" pieces aren't thoughtful. "X has disadvantages or problems, therefore we must do Y" is just pretense. What Y in the real world comes without problems or disadvantages?
I read the papers, and don't see anyone applying for permission to build replacements for the nuclear plants that are being decomissioned. Why not?
My guess is that the taxpayers won't insure nuclear generation against accidents/cleanup anymore. (There are also rules that would need to be changed, but those rules have been changed before.) It might be possible to get permission to build nuclear plant if the operator has liability insurance and a safe way to store the waste, but not without that.
And AFAICT, if the investors/operators need to pay for insurance and waste disposal, then nuclear power is too expensive compared to either building spare wind/sun capacity, learning to limit electricity use, or a combination.
I'd be happy to learn better. But these "thinktank" pieces aren't thoughtful. "X has disadvantages or problems, therefore we must do Y" is just pretense. What Y in the real world comes without problems or disadvantages?