I'm not scared of nuclear, but I'm terrified of climate change.
We don't need nuclear, because we have other options for firm low-carbon energy (geothermal) and energy storage of surplus and super-cheap intermittent renewables (lithium ion, flow batteries, hydrogen, methane, compressed air, liquid air...).
If nuclear could compete on cost, we should go for it, but it can't without a major tech breakthrough. The potential tech breakthroughs (SMRs) are far less technologically mature than any of our other options.
For example, we will definitely need to start producing hydrogen in order to decarbonize heavy industry (e.g. steel production, ammonia production, etc.). So we need hydrogen infrastructure because it's the only foreseeable path for several parts of our economy. It will get developed. Even this article, which is interpreted as heavily skeptical of hydrogen, sees a huge future for hydrogen on the grid:
https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-separating-hype-from-h...
Nuclear will only have a future if it can solve its construction problem, and compete with more modern technologies. As it is, it's a dinosaur from the past, a legacy of a time before we had better tech. The more we learn about nuclear, the more expensive it seems to get, in contrast to pretty much any good tech.
We don't need nuclear, because we have other options for firm low-carbon energy (geothermal) and energy storage of surplus and super-cheap intermittent renewables (lithium ion, flow batteries, hydrogen, methane, compressed air, liquid air...).
If nuclear could compete on cost, we should go for it, but it can't without a major tech breakthrough. The potential tech breakthroughs (SMRs) are far less technologically mature than any of our other options.
For example, we will definitely need to start producing hydrogen in order to decarbonize heavy industry (e.g. steel production, ammonia production, etc.). So we need hydrogen infrastructure because it's the only foreseeable path for several parts of our economy. It will get developed. Even this article, which is interpreted as heavily skeptical of hydrogen, sees a huge future for hydrogen on the grid:
https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-separating-hype-from-h...
Nuclear will only have a future if it can solve its construction problem, and compete with more modern technologies. As it is, it's a dinosaur from the past, a legacy of a time before we had better tech. The more we learn about nuclear, the more expensive it seems to get, in contrast to pretty much any good tech.