Asse was an experimental facility without a plan of what to do if experiment doesnt work out. 75% of the waste there is medical+research sectors. Nobody died from Asse incident nor will. Most of sellafield costs are from weapons testing era

Vatenfall in Sweden said this because Sweden has already cheap electricity prices due to existing hydro+nuclear. More nuclear without proper demand means losses. Still, Sweden will have new nulcear https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/swedish-new-nucl...

The bottom line is France with nuclear has far lower household prices vs Germany without it, far better emissions, decarbonized far earlier, spent on entire fleet half of what Germany spent on EEG, the gap getting wider each year

you are acting like there's some race that needs to prove things. But the race already ended. A combo of ren+nuclear gives far better results. It was proven in Sweden. It was proven in France

The real issue is narrower: new nuclear is capital intensive and hard to finance without long term revenue guarantees, while old waste sites can impose large public cleanup costs.

Decommissioning and waste are included in serious cost models and regulatory funding requirements, existing nuclear life extensions can be among the cheapest firm low carbon power sources, and KEPCO/EDF’s debts reflect tariff policy, fuel shocks, outages, state interventions, and investment cycles. Not simply “nuclear power is unprofitable.”

The honest conclusion is that nuclear needs strong regulation and disciplined project delivery, not that nuclear is categorically fake-cheap.

Aka what I said earlier: you need the ability for strategic long term thinking and planning and execution.