A perfectly good nuclear power plant was less than 60km from New York City, and provided 2 GW of electricity. It bothers me a lot that it was shut down . It was replaced with natural gas power plants.
My home is safe now. But I still think nuclear power in its current state is not a responsible option. The spent fuel remains dangerous after hundreds or thousands years.
pjc50•2mo ago
To me, that's the real test of nuclear power: can it actually be switched on, on time, and on budget? Too many projects fail that.
At least building at the Wylfa site avoids the need for grid upgrades.
graemep•2mo ago
Generally small projects work better than big ones, not just for nuclear power. Everything from IT systems to railways (the latter being particularly a sore point here in NE England)
happymellon•2mo ago
Do you mean the small reactors are more likely to be on time? I ask because you follow up with this and I'm not sure your position.
> Generally small projects work better than big ones
graemep•2mo ago
Arnt•2mo ago
There were issues such as having ignored the risk of an earthquake; when it became clear that earthquakes can damage reactors, the reactors that were being built needed late engineering changes that led to cost overruns. Things like that. But nothing related to reactor size.
(Note that this was about cost overruns. Not about the costs that stayed at the projected level.)
stephen_g•2mo ago
I’m glad people are still researching it, but it may turn out to be a dead end (or only be economic if heavily subsidised)
pjc50•2mo ago