How would people be able to accurately judge the cost factors of a solution which cannot be priced properly as there are no projects to compare with? It would be completely useless in the report. That’s without considering the time it would take for the supposedly “cheaper” Nuclear option to be operational. It would’ve been a good idea maybe 30-40 years ago, but it would not be suitable today considering the urgency of climate change
1 point
First there ars more large scale nuclear plants globaly bullshit we dont have a comparison. Second we dont know that they didnt run the numbers so we cant make the comparison.
