I came across this article:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1009/S ... ad-yet.htm
Of course, over the period of my adult life, I've seen several such articles. I suppose there something quite similar in spirit and details published every month or two (maybe more frequently) by the anti-nukes.
No one ever seems to get around to explaining *why* there are so many problems? In particular, the industry seems to have done a good job of giving low risk of actual catastrophic meltdowns happening, but. . .
* Why is reactor construction so horrendously expensive, and in fact, often 5-10 times over the original budgets?
* Why do so many 'minor' problems happen, like the problems at Davis-Besse, Vermont Yankee, etc? Why can't we keep these things in reliable operation for long periods of time, without environmental contamination, fires, leaks, etc?
* Would the GE-Hitachi approach (as represented by the PRISM design) of small, factory manufactured modular reactor systems be very likely to reduce costs and improve quality/reliability/safety (when asking about safety, I do realize that the IFR-style reactor design the PRISM is based off of is supposed to be pretty much meltdown-proof, but is it safe from the types of contamination problems like the Vermont Yankee leaks)?
UPDATE: I just found a most eye-opening paper, which makes me question very much how much the above linked article actually jibes with reality:
http://tedrockwell.typepad.com/files/fa ... 010apr.pdf
Sorry if everyone else is already familiar with that, but it's the first I've seen that paper.
Here's a choice selection out of that article:
Comparing the economic arguments with the real world, we note that numerous European countries are now finding that nuclear plants, having amortized much of the initial construction cost, are now clearing about $2 million profit per day per plant. This profit is so large and so certain that the competitors to nuclear plants are howling “unfair!” And nuclear plant owners are now facing "windfall profits taxes" and "unearned income" fees of hundreds of millions of dollars each year, each plant. Not just in socialist Europe, but even the Attorney General of Connecticut has joined in the call for such a tax. This is "the bottom line" in any discussion of long-term economic viability.