Nuclear doesn’t just have one problem. It has seven. Here are the seven major problems with nuclear energy and why it is not a solution to the climate crisis.
Nuclear doesn’t just have one problem. It has seven. Here are the seven major problems with nuclear energy and why it is not a solution to the climate crisis.
Oh boy. The breakdown is:
This is… really not great reporting. There are concerns with nuclear power but these aren’t them. I mean, national weapons proliferation? That’s really not a concern with modern reactor tech, and they should know that. The article ignores the last 50 years of advancement in reactor design to present their arguments, and that really undermines their credibility.
Also with the current state of NATO this might soon turn into a pro argument.
The problem is: In real life, most nations want weapons potential as an added bonus to their expensive civil nuclear programs. This connects to the “Takes too long to build” and “Expensive” points.
Nuclear waste is also something, that even though ideas exist in spades, no one seems to have been able to solve. So I wonder: What are the real world hurdles, that have prevented all the talk of “we just need breeder reactors” or something similar, that I have been hearing for many years now, to manifest? Is the tech maybe not as easily implemented as thought? Is the cost/reward ratio too bad, so it would again connect to the expensive point?
Thing is: I am not fundamentally against Nuclear as part of a power mix, with climate change being the most pressing reality. But I think it’s often presented as better as it is in the real world by people that are highly intelligent and knowledgeable in the basic physics and theoretical engineering parts - but then usually don’t have answers for why, then, even states that don’t have large anti-nuclear movements don’t use it often, in real world circumstances.
At the risk of retreating to easy retorts, I think most of the answers here can be boiled down to “the extensive efforts of petrochemical companies to suppress every competing technology”. It’s the same reason we’ve had PV or molten salt solar plants for years, but have never extensively pursued them* as a country.
The thing that bugs me about “weapons potential” is the fact that a lack of nuclear plants has done fuck all to stop countries from building warheads.
Could plants help their efforts? Maybe, and that’s a weak maybe on the side of “no.” As it stands, anyone who can build a plant can or is building nuclear arms already. If the sticking point is not wanting nuclear weapons, they’re barking up the wrong tree; the problem is the people in charge.
So does Canada.