Four Reasons Why Nuclear Power is a Dumb Idea for Australia

Originally posted by tbirdsrgo: ↑

Perhaps you could have quoted from the beginning of that article - puts things in perspective - rather than selectively?

About 200 commercial, experimental or prototype reactors, over 500 research reactors, and several fuel cycle facilities have been retired from operation. Some of these have been fully dismantled.
Most parts of a nuclear power plant do not become radioactive, or are contaminated at only very low levels. Most of the metal can be recycled.
Proven techniques and equipment are available to dismantle nuclear facilities safely and these have now been well demonstrated in several parts of the world.
Decommissioning costs for nuclear power plants, including disposal of associated wastes, are high relative to other industrial plants but are reducing, and contribute only a small fraction of the total cost of electricity generation.
All power plants, coal, gas and nuclear, have a finite life beyond which it is not economically feasible to operate them.Generally speaking, early nuclear plants were designed for a life of about 30 years, though with refurbishment, some have proved capable of continuing well beyond this. Newer plants are designed for a 40 to 60 year operating life. At the end of the life of any power plant, it needs to be decommissioned, cleaned up and demolished so that the site is made available for other uses.
For nuclear plants, the term decommissioning includes all clean-up of radioactivity and progressive dismantling of the plant. This may start with the owner's decision to write it off or declare that it is permanently removed from operation. For practical purposes it includes defueling and removal of coolant, though NRC at least defines it as strictly beginning only after fuel and coolant are removed. It concludes with licence termination after decontamination is verified and wastes removed.
A Table showing shutdown reactors is at the end of this paper. About 25 of these have completed the decommissioning process

Expand

As l have posted several times, l have no problem with nuclear reactors when they are used in the appropriate circumstances .

Very similar to guns actually.

However, as l have also posted, they are not the best solution in may cases. Especially when you have to pay for the site clean up at the end of life.

Billions of dollars, sometimes decades of work and as we've seen in some cases, they don't clean them up at all .

Then there's this little extra zinger.

STATEMENT: Federal government renews policy that shifts financial risk of nuclear accident onto taxpayers
WASHINGTON — Today President Biden signed an appropriations bill that renewed a long-standing limit on liability for nuclear power plant owners, protecting the industry from losses in the event of a major accident. This liability cap, sometimes referred to as the Price-Anderson Act, ensures that taxpayers assume the risk of a major nuclear accident.
Under the renewed Price-Anderson Act, the nuclear industry is liable for only the first $16.1 billion damages in the event of a nuclear accident. Damages to the public from the Fukushima nuclear disaster exceed $90 billion. The full value of the Price-Anderson nuclear subsidy is difficult to estimate, but if nuclear operators had to carry the full cost of insurance against a nuclear accident, the plants would most likely become uneconomic to build.

https://environmentamerica.org/media-center/statement-federal-government-renews-policy-that-shifts-financial-risk-of-nuclear-accident-onto-taxpayers/