Nuclear energy isn’t CO2 free and there is still no solution for the nuclear waste.
And don’t forget that the plant operating companies themselves didn’t want to keep the plants.
And don’t forget that the plant operating companies themselves didn’t want to keep the plants.
If you think of wind, you need to cover vast areas of a country to generate meaningful amounts of energy.
Neither was the exhaust from the first cars.
See
Not to mention that nuclear energy leads to centralization what makes it a valuable target for sabotage.
Finland just built a repository. The US one was finished and then shut down for purely political reasons.
Wherever it's a problem it is politics. Technically it's a non-problem. And of course temporary storage is also a non-problem, which is why politicians can play stupid games with the final repositories.
Oh, and of course we shouldn't be throwing it away in the first place, as it still contains >95% of the energy when we do. We should be recycling the fuel, preferably with reactors that can burn it directly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Grid_Corporation_of_Chin...
Nuclear waste is both solved and largely a non-problem, which is why politicians can use it to score publicity points.
Is that burying it deep underground?
Safety? Three-mile island? Chernobyl? The one in Japan? Ok, earthquake zone so not a good idea anyway. I heard the French nuclear program has a 100% safety record. But that could be false to keep the public in board with it.
Wouldn't wind and solar be the way to go? U don't need a big centralised for profit energy source.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
See also:
Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nu...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daini_Nuclear_Power_... < This one, just a few miles away worked according to plan, and was a base for safe operations in all that chaos that ensued, because Fukushima Daichi was planned bad, ignoring hundreds of years of local knowledge, including stone markers which showed how high former tsunamis reached there. And then putting emergency infrastructure below that line, also not installing available systems which would have stopped the hydrogen explosions from happening.
Chernobyl? Human stupidity commited by 'Apparatshiks'.
TMI? Shrug. Shit happens. Was there more than a great panic about not that much? Is there a large exclusion zone? Was there ever one?
> Is that burying it deep underground?
Yes, why not? It's perfectly workable to 'feel good' about it, though not strictly necessary. The Fins do it. The US could have this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r... , the opposition against that is ridiculous, considering Nevada is irradiated anyway because of all the nuclear testing there :)
Otherwise: Eminent domain! Comply or die!
This is partly my point. Nuclear is dangerous because idiots can make mistakes. Can you do that with wind and solar?
Yes, there are lots of things that, in the hands of idiots, can be a disaster but I think Nuclear Power is one of the most dangerous. So far we've avoided annihilation via Nuclear Weapons but lately that's become a concern again. It all depends on who is running the show. And that to repeat is my concern over Nuclear Power.