I agree with your point that nimbyism shouldn't be a relevant factor in new build decisions though. The real issue is not whether you would want to live next to a new nuclear reactor, but whether you would want to live next to one in the process of being decommissioned at minimum cost contracts (or pay for the same, which is not being factored in to operating expenses). Or, live next to one of the wholly inadequate storage facilities for the hottest waste which we still have little idea what to do with.
Personally I think wind turbines look quite majestic, and I like to see them when I go for a drive in the countryside.
This isn't directly related to the original question of living next to a nuclear power plant vs a wind farm, but as you mentioned, nuclear power stations require large mining operations to supply them with uranium (you have to mine a lot of land for a small amount of uranium), whereas wind turbines do not. And finally, wind turbines can be erected in the sea where they don't displace any land at all.
I have driven passed it many, many times. I can tell you that the visual impact is minimal, and the area around it is "untouched natural or agricultural landscape". Blocking the skyline? How tall do you think the cooling towers are? Wind farms have a much larger visual impact.
I won't go for low risk when it comes to nuclear and not let my family grow up next to it. Only no risk would be acceptable to me when it comes to nuclear, quite some tail risk in this case.
I don’t think “no-risk” exists for any power gen tech, fwiw. There are always going to be trade-offs.
For interviewee points to the fact that new nuclear is significantly more expensive than solar and wind. In fact, even existing nuclear’s base running costs are higher. And here’s the kicker. Solar/wind + existing battery tech is also cheaper than nuclear. And we don’t even need battery until solar/wind generation has increased by an order of magnitude.
So $1 spent on nuclear will do a lot less to reduce CO2 than $1 spent on wind/solar. Further, that $1 spent on nuclear will still take up to a decade to start helping reduce CO2, while the solar/wind options will likely be active within a year or so.
The article may be wrong about all these facts, but in a response to it one needs to at least show why they are wrong instead of pretending the claims were never made.
