I am flabbergasted that some commenters here argue against nuclear because of waste and accidents, while ignoring that
- coal produce radioactive waste too
- it kills a lot more persons (without taking into account global warning) due to air pollution
- the economic cost of nuclear may be underestimated, but this is nothing
compared to the economic cost of global warming.
Renewable (wind and solar) are extremely important, but nuclear replace coal and gas. Renewable alone are not enough, especially since we will need a lot more electric energy for transport and to decarbonise the atmosphere; so both are needed.
It boggles my mind that Germany made a great effort on renewable, and used
this extra energy to close nuclear plants rather than coals ones. (At the
beginning they even had to open more coal plants!) This means that Fukushima
(which made Germany close its nuclear plants) killed a lot more people in
Germany than in Japan.
People's priority are wrongly aligned: first close coals and gas plants
using renewable, and then think about reducing nuclear plants once we have
good storage technology.
Recall that coal is 1000 times more deadly than nuclear per unit of energy
(including the nuclear accidents). Taking global warming into account, this
is way worse; if nothing is done we are talking about billions of
death to total collapse of human civilisation.
Compared to that, the human and economic cost of nuclear waste and a few
potential large nuclear explosions due to accident/malice is trivial.
Nuclear energy is a vital tool against global warming, and I am very
concerned for the future of my children that even well educated people (I have these same
arguments with my university colleagues) don't realise that.
- coal produce radioactive waste too
- it kills a lot more persons (without taking into account global warning) due to air pollution
- the economic cost of nuclear may be underestimated, but this is nothing compared to the economic cost of global warming.
Renewable (wind and solar) are extremely important, but nuclear replace coal and gas. Renewable alone are not enough, especially since we will need a lot more electric energy for transport and to decarbonise the atmosphere; so both are needed.
It boggles my mind that Germany made a great effort on renewable, and used this extra energy to close nuclear plants rather than coals ones. (At the beginning they even had to open more coal plants!) This means that Fukushima (which made Germany close its nuclear plants) killed a lot more people in Germany than in Japan.
People's priority are wrongly aligned: first close coals and gas plants using renewable, and then think about reducing nuclear plants once we have good storage technology.
Recall that coal is 1000 times more deadly than nuclear per unit of energy (including the nuclear accidents). Taking global warming into account, this is way worse; if nothing is done we are talking about billions of death to total collapse of human civilisation.
Compared to that, the human and economic cost of nuclear waste and a few potential large nuclear explosions due to accident/malice is trivial.
Nuclear energy is a vital tool against global warming, and I am very concerned for the future of my children that even well educated people (I have these same arguments with my university colleagues) don't realise that.