| > Waste : we don't really know what to do with them. We pile them up and try to protect humans from them, but really we don't know what to do more than that. We know exactly what to do with it: bury it underground, in bedrock, like what Finland is doing [1]. For countries like the USA that don't reprocess nuclear waste, it represents a future source of fuel so burying it is wasteful. There's also an incredibly small amount of waste: all nuclear waste from electricity generation in the USA fits in a volume the footprint of a football field and 10 yards high [2]. > War risk : if a plant is a military target, it might cause big trouble to the population around, and to the nature… The risk posed by nuclear power plants in wartime is drastically lower than the actual war itself. The vulnerability of power plants are also overstated: reactors are essentially inside of bunkers, protected by meters of reinforced concrete. The Ukraine war has demonstrated the resilience of nuclear plants: none have been breached. > We don't have sufficient sources of uranium : it seems that we lack some uranium in order to produce enough energy in a sustainable way. Existing terrestrial reserves are more than enough for centuries, or longer with reprocessing. Uranium seawater extraction affords an effectively unlimited supply [3]. Nuclear power represents the only non-intermittent source of carbon-free energy besides geographically limited sources like geothermal or hydroelectric power. For that reason, it's going to be the backbone of most countries' decarbonization efforts unless a massive breakthrough in storage is made. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... 2. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-... 3. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s... |