The difference is the cost coming from handling it. The latest figure on the cost to handle Fukushima is $190B from 2016.
The great thing today is that we don't need to accept radioactive releases from either nuclear power or coal. Simply build the cheap scalable option instead: renewables.
you replace nuclear waste (that can be reduced with purex or reused with fast reactors) with non recyclable toxic renewable waste in much greater quantities
For accidents - just need to build newer reactor models. ap1000 is a marvel of engineering
Please name an industrial ready-to-deploy fast reactor. AFAIK there it doesn't exist, therefore its (after decades of expensive R&D in many nations) just a vague hope, not a potential part of the solution.
many proved it worked, including the Phenix and Superphenix, but were closed due to political reasons. Now russia is the leader with bn-600 and india/china are catching up
Phenix was not industrial (250 MWe) but a research reactor. Superphenix was an attempt to haul it to industrial scale and it failed to do so, just as every other similar project.
Russia BN-600 is obsolete and was so leaky (sodium!) is isn't even funny. It was superseded by the BN-800 which started in 2014 and has various problems (most related to fuel, the core of this challenge). This path is officially paused (a planned BN-1200 project didn't start). If it works satisfactorily, as you implicitly claim, please state why it isn't declined (other units built) while Russia tries another breeder architecture (BREST-300, using lead instead of sodium)?
phenix and superphenix were closed mainly for political reasons, not because these didn't deliver|
"This path is officially paused" - meaning the reactor is closed?
> phenix and superphenix were closed mainly for political reasons
Phénix is not pertinent, it worked perfectly but was a research reactor (small, expensive...).
Superphenix never reached the industrial stage, even the enterprise exploiting it (NERSA) never said so. They simply declared that they were willing to continue and hoping to reach the goal (13 years after first reactor divergence, 24 years after project start, with gigantic amounts of money poured at the project).
they did build the stuff, so 'catching up' is a pretty correct statement. I didn't say they catched up, for that they'll need much more time and effort, but they do have progress
It’s still a non-answer to the original question. Look, we all get that you’re a fan and there’s nothing wrong with that (especially here) but overstating things does not help the cause. Nuclear power proponents often act like there’s some conspiracy to suppress the technology when basic economics is a simpler explanation. In this case, it’s great that progress is happening but it’s still the case that if our goal is decarbonizing you’ll see almost immediate reductions taking the same money and bringing renewables online a decade or more sooner. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t consider nuclear for some of the edge cases but there’s still too much R&D needed for it to be a primary source.
while cheaper in some contexts and somewhat scalable, renewables are nowhere near being as scalable or effective as nuclear, specially as tensions with China rise
Renewables are vastly more scalable and effective than nuclear.
You mentioned China. Last year, China brought more than 100x more PV on line than they did nuclear (on a rated power basis; levelized basis maybe 30x as much.)
Nuclear power which currently has zero new commercial reactors under construction in the US while backsliding as an energy source due to cost and construction timelines now apparently is "effective" and "scalable".
Renewables can be destroyed by a war, but it will not take ten years to rebuild and connect it again to the grid when the war is over. Is not only cheaper, but allows a gradual recover of the electric supply. With nuclear a recover is much more rigid and rushing it is potentially catastrophic.
The great thing today is that we don't need to accept radioactive releases from either nuclear power or coal. Simply build the cheap scalable option instead: renewables.