New answers tagged nuclear-energy
14
That claim cannot really be proven or disproven, because there is not clear (or objective) what "cheap" means.
Nuclear power is fairly cheap, but it is not the cheapest.
As already mentioned in a comment "cheap" is only really useful in comparison to something else (i.e. in this case other energy sources). Furthermore, it depends on the costs that are ...
1
According to Cost of electricity by source (Wikipedia) estimated UK LCOE for projects starting in 2015 gives nuclear at 93 £/MWh. Onshore wind power is at 62 £/MWh.
A US study gives nuclear at 96.2 $/MWh and geothermal at 44.0 $/MWh.
You can see that page for more studies.
6
It might refer to this Charlie Rose interview from 23 Sep 2011. To summarize, in this interview, Ahmadinejad said it made no economic sense for Iran to produce 20%-enriched uranium domestically instead of buying it (from abroad). He also said Iran wanted/needed 20%-enriched uranium only for the production of medical isotopes. (I don't want to get into the ...
1
No. Fundamentally they were different types of accidents.
The Chornobyl accident was an excursion. Power within the reactor increased, and this increase caused more increase,* in an exponential spiral until the energy was so high that the reactor exploded in a BLEVE. The BLEVE smashed what little containment this type had, directly exposed the reactor ...
5
I paid close attention to the Fukushima investigation for years. I've lost my sources (I could use some help with that) but I can add some more detail as to exactly where it went wrong. If the lack of refs is a problem, I'll cheerfully delete this answer.
Yes, as you say, the earthquake didn't do any critical damage inside the containment area, but the ...
Top 50 recent answers are included
