I don't think I'll ever forgive the environmental movement for turning their back on nuclear technology.
Yes, there are safety concerns but the price of inaction was the climate. I would take an accident or two over climate change any day.
Yes, there are safety concerns but the price of inaction was the climate. I would take an accident or two over climate change any day.
Meanwhile humans doing stupid stuff are still a problem with nuclear. Recently we had this guy with his Bitcoin mining rig and whatever happened in Russia.
But new ones often dwarf the previous ones, and when they come online, then you can take an old, small one offline.
The tech is dangerous, humans are irresponsible greedy idiots who should not handle it and we have no space for the waste from production and from decommission.
Also: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclearpower-astri...
Its FUD like that, that keeps accidents happening. Because we can't decommission old reactors by building new ones.
You CAN decommission them. You just don't WANT. Germany managed it. France could too but they are not doing it because of greed aka human intervention.
In the end the same fact remains: humans = bad, bad shouldn't manage nuclear ergo no nuclear.
With a growing populace and demand, no you cannot decommission power plants without huge political backlash.
Really, the only technology? Not inshore wind turbines? Not hydrochlorofluorocarbon elimination?
"that can really help us in the next 10 years."
I doubt California could build a nuclear power plant in 10 years, and even if they did it would be crazy expensive and still take several years before it became operational. There are better ways to reduce and remove CO2 for the money.
Having said that, I (and probably many environmentalists) would still keep Diablo Canyon given the sunk costs and benefits. However it doesn't mean I think we should be spending money building more nuclear power plants.