Nuclear, yes or no: cost and waste remain the wall
Nuclear power returns to the agenda every few years, and this time the headline is clear: “NUCLEAR? YES, PLEASE”. But the enthusiasm runs into two objections that cannot be brushed aside: cost and waste.
One objection is economic. Nuclear power requires multibillion-dollar investments in construction, maintenance and decommissioning. Adding up all the items, the bill turns out more expensive than other sources, as is argued time and again. The second objection is the management of radioactive waste: nobody wants it on their territory, and its danger is measured in thousands of years.
Meanwhile, supporters simply take the idea for granted, without going into detail about who pays for the reactors or who ends up with the nuclear waste. The awkward question remains unanswered: if price and waste are the toll, who pays it?
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication.
Read the full discussion (22 replies).
Von der Leyen admits Europe was wrong to abandon nuclear energy. A genuine U-turn or hypocrisy? An analysis of costs, security and the interests behind the shift.
A June 2000 Official Gazette notice lists María del Carmen Abascal as debtor for a Collado Mediano chalet auctioned for 20 million pesetas by Banco Zaragozano.
A boy called David Da Vinci claims to have an IQ higher than Einstein's. We look at the viral phenomenon, the reliability of intelligence tests and past cases.