I don't have time for a point by point refutal right now, and there are some valid points raised in this document, but in sum this really is just shameful propaganda which overstates the problems with nuclear and doesn't seem to acknowledge modern technological developments. The first paragraph of the conclusion really tells you everything you need to know about the author's unreasonable bias:
>Nuclear power is a clunky technology borne out of a bygone Cold War era. Its best days are over and it cannot form a key
part of sustainable energy policy.
The waste problem in particular I think is overstated, and costs are deliberately presented in a way as to appear expensive - neglecting just how much clean power comes from the "1,000,000 each" dry casks - and it is disingenuous to even by implicitly equate this with environmental pollution because this waste is contained and not released into the atmosphere like other forms of dirty power.
Hit pieces like this are the reason that we are in climate crisis now - when we could have cheaply and sustainably solved energy needs decades ago with nuclear, with some marginal risk to civilizations thousands of years into the future.
>Nuclear power is a clunky technology borne out of a bygone Cold War era. Its best days are over and it cannot form a key part of sustainable energy policy.
The waste problem in particular I think is overstated, and costs are deliberately presented in a way as to appear expensive - neglecting just how much clean power comes from the "1,000,000 each" dry casks - and it is disingenuous to even by implicitly equate this with environmental pollution because this waste is contained and not released into the atmosphere like other forms of dirty power.
Hit pieces like this are the reason that we are in climate crisis now - when we could have cheaply and sustainably solved energy needs decades ago with nuclear, with some marginal risk to civilizations thousands of years into the future.