>>11132757The entire article is bullshit, and obviously written by a crazy anti-nuke.
A station can have several reactors, producing several GW in total.
Nuclear doesn't need to supply 15TWh. Hydro and geo still exist. Solar and wind can provide probably 20% themselves before the battery requirements get too steep. Nuclear is the reliable fill in.
Proliferation has always been a bullshit concern. LWR waste isn't very useful. Anyone who can make it useful could also just start from scratch.
Waste is only a concern if you make it one. Really, we should be burning waste in breeders, which is a proliferation concern, but you don't need many of them, so they could be secured more tightly.
Accidents have become rare, and Fukushima could have been predicted. In fact, it was predicted, during construction, when an engineer loudly stated the sea wall was too short. Fukushima also lacked important features that modern reactors have, like hydrogen recombinators, which would have prevented the containment blow.
The whole reserve argument is really stupid. We're a few decades away from running out of lots of things, but we always find more somewhere. Companies don't survey for shit a hundred years out, because doing so is a waste of money.
Discounting ocean extraction is really, really stupid. We can extract Uranium from seawater at twice the cost of current mining using a very basic process that was pretty much just an experiment. Abbott is basically a retard if he thinks 40/300,000 years of extraction will make it too hard, especial when hydrothermal vents will start replenishing the supply as we draw it down.
The metals specified are somewhat expensive, but also they aren't mined and refined on a huge scale, because they're only used in small quantity.
Man, what a load.
