Hacker News Reader

These cost estimates do not include the maintenance of the waste products of nuclear energy production.

These costs are astonishingly!

If the 10,000 year costs fell on the producers and consumers directly (this is how it should be), they would quickly have a different point of different view

View on HN

Drill hole, insert waste: https://vimeo.com/458322589

It's really not that hard, except from a political standpoint.

Thats fine, solutions are always fine. But ensure that only the consumers of this power and pay for its construction an upkeep

Also ensure that consumers pay for emitting atmospheric CO₂, including backup power when wind and solar are offline due to weather.

And when those numbers are run they turn out cheaper then nuclear

Do you mean that for the purpose of backing up wind and solar, it will be cheaper to use fossil fuels and sequester the carbon, than to use nuclear energy and sequester the waste?

No it will be cheaper to backup renewables by renewables with infrastructure then building nuclear for world wide carbon neutral electrification.

I believe the costs for nuclear are longterm.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com