Nuclear is failing in the US currently because we have historic low natural gas prices. They spent 9 billion dollars on these plants. They didn't give up because of insurance. They gave up because they can't outcompete fossil fuels.

Nuclear has been "failing" for decades. The TVA plant that recently came online was started 43 years ago.

Nuclear has a long, storied history of costing multiples of estimates at every stage -- building, operation, decommissioning, etc. And as the GP mentioned, black swan events ("it couldn't possibly happen...oh it happened well that's not a true Scotsman") are so enormous that it needs government to take the liability.

The original budget was 5 billion. I am curious what all changed in the design to make it triple (they still had many billions left to complete) the costs over the budget? was it crappy budgeting in the first place? bad project management? huge changes in requirements after Fukishama?

Gas has actually been this cheap before, and for a long time so. 20 years ago oil cost less than a third than it is now, and yet then fossil fuel prices weren't an issue.

The real reason is deeper than that. Nuclear is simply put very very expensive and has a high risk attached to it.

Back then lots of politicians were willing to steal from taxpayers and ratepayers because of some nebulous idea that we needed more nuclear weapons and nuclear power was somehow related to that. Now, that's less true.

It is easy to talk software developers into nuclear. In the software world, if you have bugs, you fix them in the next patch, as they are discovered.

In the nuclear reactor engineering world, a failure (as the result of a single bug or engineering oversight) can result in a 60 year clean up project, make $100B in farmland unusable, and other problematic outcomes.

It is difficult to comprehend the sheer magnitude of difference.

>We've tried for 70+ years and have as yet not succeeded to use nuclear as a financially feasible energy source.

All forms of energy are highly subsidized. Wind, solar, nuclear, and fossil. The actual market forces, true costs and externalities are completely opaque, for all of the above.

Generally, from these conversations, I see anti-nuclear folks cheering for nuclear to go away and pro-nuclear folks voicing the opposite. Nothing new to see, here.

For one, I would like to see better control over project planning, estimating, and execution. I would also like to bring on-line newer technology that includes passive cooling etc. I do believe that those technologies will allow for higher margins of safety, which will eventually reduce the cost of operation.

> We've tried for 70+ years and have as yet not succeeded to use nuclear as a financially feasible energy source.

Nuclear is used widely. It is definitely a feasible energy source, by definition.

It is becoming financially infeasible because of cheap natural gas. The same is happening to coal.

> Why has a nuclear facility never been able to be fully privately insured without government backing?!

For something to be privately insured, there needs to be a statistically significant data set. We don't have that for nuclear incidents. There just aren't enough of them.

A quick google Search states that there are 449 currently active reactors. Pair that with 50+ years of mass usage, and we have a pretty large data set that should be more than sufficient to calculate the risk.

And as I stated previously: gas and oil are historically not low at all. They are only low compared to 5 years ago.

Nuclear is reallly expensive and risky. That's why it's failing.

Failing? In China (2015), nuclear was the fastest-growing electricity source (29% growth).

> There just aren't enough of them.

Blissfully. 3-mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima are quite enough thank you very much.

One coal plant will emit more radiation then all of those combined over its lifetime.

Downvoting for stating facts on postings about Nuclear is HNs standard modus operandi. I wish more people on HN had lived through Chernobyl. They wouldn't lap up the cool-aid quite as enthusiastically then.