Nuclear decommissioning costs in the UK are estimated to reach £260 billion[1]. It would be interesting to compare that to the inflation-adjusted construction costs for the plants. My suspicion is that it’s significantly higher.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/23/uk-nucle...

This is mostly because of the Sellafield site, which was used for nuclear weapons production. It's also the site of the infamous Windscale nuclear reactor fire.

The US has the same problems with Hanford.

But I don't think this is fair to ascribe these costs to modern civilian nuclear power programs.

It's not a lie, I am obviously not talking about the cost of decommissioning but the costs that keep ticking after the decommissioning has been done.

Rancho seco is an interesting example, it was closed in 1989 and is still costing millions today. "SMUD estimates that it spends roughly $5 million each year to essentially "babysit" the waste, which requires tight security and a small crew to oversee its proper storage”

https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article210858009.html"

Also worth noting is that the DoE has paid SMUD over 100 million dollars to date for contract violations (failing to present a storage site for the waste).

The funny thing is that operators book this money as _income_ related to the nuclear plant, when it is in fact costs to the taxpayers.

Also keep in mind of course that if and when SMUD finally gets rid of the waste, that only stops the costs ticking for SMUD, not for the taxpayers.