Originally Posted by
JamesNoBrakes
Not in every place and situation. In a few, it makes sense. In many, the energy required to build everything, protect it, isolate the radioactive waste, outpaces the energy produced. In other words it costs more than it saves. Many cities use gas-turbines because they are over 65% efficient (thermal cycle) and are extremely reliable and scalable (can add one or two real fast as necessary). It's possible that technology could offer a cleaner nuclear or fusion solution in the future, but again, that's not where we are today.
I think we're about at a point where cheap is not a carte-blanche excuse to generate CO2.
New design nuclear (fission) plants solve every problem except waste. Waste should be considered a temporary issue, ie we're not going to use fission forever, just long enough to bridge the gap to future carbon-free sources. A single waste repository in the right place would be harmless. The only (grasping) argument against that is the danger to future primitive societies... first off, I don't think we are obligated to plan for what happens after the total collapse of civilization. Second if a future society has regressed to the point where they don't know not to play with nuclear waste, you can simply keep them out with large steel doors
Current plants are the technological equivalent of a '57 Chevy. Works fine, lasts a long time, but new plant designs are a very sharp contrast to the old ones (both systems and core physics). IMO it would be important to license only one design, for standardization purposes. First generation plants were all one-off designs, so the operators are test pilots for the life of the plant. Operators who change jobs have to spend about three years in training before they are released to "fly the line"... and then they are still test pilots.
We all understand the benefits of a fleet with one type rating...