In the short term nuclear is undoubtedly expensive, but when the debt from construction is payed off, it becomes an incredibly cheap and reliable source of energy.
As far as I'm aware, dealing with the waste has cost taxpayers in Germany quite a lot over the last couple of decades, and all of the really hot stuff is sitting in glorified warehouses with no end in sight. I have a feeling this may still become a very significant part of the overall costs. Has any other country actually solved that problem?
This is what the interviewee points to in the interview itself, but also adds that they mah not be the answer because there is evidence that original estimates for copper’s corrosion were far too optimistic.
That is simply wrong. Underground storage is not a panacea. Few mines are suitable and even those require expensive preparation and maintenance for coming decades or even centuries, with many hard to predict risks (think earthquake, flood).
Few mines is all we need. The entirety of the USA would need just one such site.
There's plenty of nasty natural stuff underground and a well-designed mine storage site would be a lesser risk than continuously radioactive coal power plants of today.
The only truly reliable and inexhaustible output of the nuke industry is falsehood.
They were lying before the first commercial plant was built ("too cheap to meter") and have continued well past the industry's deserved end ("incredibly cheap", above). The article demonstrates that even operating them, neglecting all of construction and decommissioning, costs more than alternatives.
"Incredibly" is a perhaps unintentionally revealing admission.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY