The ‘substantial’ aspects of nuclear energy place generational demands on humanity and whoever will inherit the earth after humans. No other energy source places this burden on humanity. None.
“Substantial” aspects mean nuclear fission by products. This matter is just that: matter. It exists regardless of any other consideration. It comes into being because of the fission process. This coming into being creates the “burden” I was talking about.
Until we can safely send them to orbit and then to deep space it will not be “clean”. Of course then we’re polluting deep space.
I mentioned risk models in another comment. In your opinion, is nuclear energy safe from irrational (state) actors? For clarification, note that even hydroelectric energy has a risk factor that it can not be protected against irrational state actors. Recent events in Ukraine a case in point. And that ‘system failure’ did have environmental impact.
The point I am trying to make regarding nuclear (fission) energy is that hazard and catastrophe are a continual concern, and will remain so long after we are gone. Unquestionably, nuclear fission is far less damaging than many other energy systems but on the hazard side of the equation it stands alone. We rely on various wishful thoughts, such as assured grasp of human competence, greed, rationality, to say nothing of failures in other systems (such as software guidance for missiles) and also acts of God such as geological events. And for how long? For the lifetime of the existence of the hazardous material and processes.
This is just FUD.
The orders of magnitude worse CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere where it is in such low concentration that we'll have no chance of ever removing it from there is much worse than nuclear waste for humanity's future. At least nuclear waste is concentrated and there is very little of it, so it can be treated and handled appropriately.
Nuclear is not environmentally clean. I remain mildly amazed that this is debate worthy.
I also remain mildly amazed that the adoption of nuclear is still debate worthy. I suppose there are whole generations scared beyond repair from the Cold War and nuclear weapons, so that they cannot see past that.
Make the case that the material from nuclear fission can be disposed of without any risk whatsoever to whoever is coming to inhabit this planet after you. Short term analysis is what got us here but it is fine and “practical” but does not merit the “clean” badge.
To spare any additional non rebuttals, no, I am not “scared” of there existing nuclear reactors for energy. It is not a matter of immediate concern to me personally and I find the industry’s claims of safety to be believable. What is not believable is that we have found a means of disposing of radioactive material which is guaranteed to not pose any danger in the future, “environmentally” speaking.
That's quite the definitive statement to include so many subjective things.
There may be minor technical hurdles but only nattering naysayers think they're impossible to overcome.
If we can put people on the moon, we can certainly put them on the sun.
This is, of course, satire. There is every evidence that yes, nuclear energy is a viable base load generator that would be tremendously useful for a wide variety of scenarios (as putting power plants on the sun would also be a tremendously useful technology). It's also clear that there are serious, possibly impossible to overcome technical reasons why these plants haven't really been deployed in great numbers (other than france in the 70s), and haven't been proven to be economically viable. "It would be economically viable if we focused our whole global economic output on developing the technology to make standardized, modular power plants, and then if we eliminate most regulation everywhere except where I and my kids live and go to school" is maybe true, but also probably not realistic.
Fusion power from the sun, though, has proven to be pretty economically viable.