They are then run far beyond their projected life time in order to recoup costs and then the poor public have to pay at least as much again as it cost to build and oiperate just to dismantle the stupid thing.
But then again, I never did understand economics and I'm sure putting your head in a guillotine makes an awful lot of sense as well. keep to the Fen Causeway
They almost always come in on budget. It's just that the media doesn't write about those projects. I guess it's a bit like the media myth "no nuclear reactors have been built in Europe since Chernobyl" until Olkiluoto 3.
They have the least outages and highest capacity factors of any power plant.
The fact that they were built to such extremely high standards you turn on its head and call "run far beyond their projected life time in order to recoup costs". If they recouped their costs in 5 years, should they be shut down then? Off course not. As long as they are safe and profitable you should run them.
The public doesn't have to pay for dismantling the plants. The power companies pay for that in all civilized countries.
I think you know all these things and are just being disenginious. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
