|
|
|
|
|
|
by dotcoma
1445 days ago
|
|
|
Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, for example. Or the fact that we don't really know where to store 'normal' nuclear waste safely. And the fact that it takes ages to build a nuclear plant. And they are always late, and over budget. And that solar power and wind power apparently are cheaper. |
|
|
And yet nuclear is still safer per unit of energy than any other sort of power.
> Or the fact that we don't really know where to store 'normal' nuclear waste safely.
The quantities are tiny, especially compared to the fossil fuel plants they'd be replacing (said plants happily spewing their far larger quantities of waste into the atmosphere).
> And the fact that it takes ages to build a nuclear plant.
> And they are always late, and over budget.
Due to regulatory hurdles, NIMBYism, and the usual government expenditure bloat that affects all public works projects (at least here in the US).
> And that solar power and wind power apparently are cheaper.
Per kilowatt, that's doubtful - particularly once you factor in the batteries needed to make solar/wind a suitable replacement for nuclear.
If you're going to advocate we skip nuclear, then the best bet would be to advocate a push for geothermal. The Earth is hot 24/7, and using that heat for power is "simply" a matter of digging a sufficiently-deep hole.