According to the EPA [1], electricity accounts for 25% of greenhouse gas emissions. While that's significant, replacing all fossil fuel usage for power production is significant.
The standard concerns apply:
1. We have no long term solution for the storage and disposal of enrichment byproducts. There is reprocessing but the results are simply less toxic (eg UF6 -> UF4) and are, to date, expensive;
2. We have no long term solution on the storage and disposal of fission waste products;
3. The failure modes are huge. Most notably, the Cheernobyl Absolute Exclusion Zone stands at 1000 square miles 35 years after the fact; and
4. This it he big one for me: I just don't trust governments or corporations to maintain, inspect, manage and operate nuclear power plants at scale.
> Researchers have estimated that about 1 in 5 deaths globally can be attributed to fossil fuels through air pollution alone
From the linked post [2]:
Also worth noting:
> The study shows that more than 8 million people around the globe die each year as a result of breathing in air containing particles from burning fuels like coal, petrol and diesel, ...
So it's including vehicles. You could be 100% nuclear power generation and that part wouldn't change. The counterpoint is electric vehicles. While these are generally a positive, they have more limited utility, higher cost (a significant issue in much of the world) and you have to factor in the externalities of the power used to charge them.
[1]: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
[2]: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/feb/fossil-fuel-air-pollutio...
The standard concerns apply:
1. We have no long term solution for the storage and disposal of enrichment byproducts. There is reprocessing but the results are simply less toxic (eg UF6 -> UF4) and are, to date, expensive;
2. We have no long term solution on the storage and disposal of fission waste products;
3. The failure modes are huge. Most notably, the Cheernobyl Absolute Exclusion Zone stands at 1000 square miles 35 years after the fact; and
4. This it he big one for me: I just don't trust governments or corporations to maintain, inspect, manage and operate nuclear power plants at scale.
> Researchers have estimated that about 1 in 5 deaths globally can be attributed to fossil fuels through air pollution alone
From the linked post [2]:
Also worth noting:
> The study shows that more than 8 million people around the globe die each year as a result of breathing in air containing particles from burning fuels like coal, petrol and diesel, ...
So it's including vehicles. You could be 100% nuclear power generation and that part wouldn't change. The counterpoint is electric vehicles. While these are generally a positive, they have more limited utility, higher cost (a significant issue in much of the world) and you have to factor in the externalities of the power used to charge them.
[1]: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
[2]: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/feb/fossil-fuel-air-pollutio...