-
It seems logical that the worst thing you can do is build then not fully use them. All the capital expense, most of the issues and risks, but less power output that has to be filled by another source.
I also find it hard to believe that the world would be in a worst place in 50 years time if nuclear power replaced coal power 50 years ago. Not that I think nuclear is without it's major issues, just that we are looking pretty fucked as it is.
dst2-
I guess it depends if say there had been some even more catastrophic accident than Chernobyl, or a whole load more Chernobyls and Daiichis, and your faith in the 'fuckedness' of our situation due to fossil fuel burning.
I guess the worst with nuclear is very, very, very bad and easy to picture, the climate effects of fossil fuel burning, less so.
Howard
Running the plants longer is, when you look at setup and closedown, a tiny incremental cost. You don’t escape the shutdown costs by closing the plant 6 years early (or whatever).
And unlike gas you can buy uranium from the Aussies.