the lack of exploitable uranium to meet demand, if the worlds power supply would become nuclear
the vulnerability to water shortages, which are already affecting many plants
the exorbitant waste of water for cooling, that stresses vital aquatic ecosystems, supplying millions of people with water, and being more and more stressed by climate change
the heightened threat in war, terror and other crisis
the immense investment costs and lack of effective insurance in case of disasters
the repeated findings of ignoring safety measures and protocol in country after country where it was said that “sth. like Chernobyl would never happen here, because we implement and obey proper safety procedures”
Waste is literally a solved problem, bury it underground in containers. A reasonably sized shelter can cover our needs for a looooong time.
Lack of uranium is news to me, but a quick google search seems to indicate that it is mostly a supply/demand type situation. There is plenty out there, just not necessarily profitable to extract it. But, nothing lasts forever, that is true.
Water shortages are entirely a local problem dependent on where the plant is placed. So literally a non issue in any sensible location.
Water is not “wasted” for cooling. It is pumped in, used for cooling, then pumped out. No water is lost or wasted in the process. This extra heat extracted in the water can then also be used for heating, thus increasing the efficiency of the system.
Heightened threat in war, yeah, but that is a senseless argument, and also very much dependent on geography and politics. This is in no way a problem with nuclear power, this is a problem with war.
The investment costs are definitely high, which is why nuclear power should be run by the state, and not a for profit business.
The whole nuclear accidents thing keeps getting brought up as an argument, but I do not see the relevance. Chernobyl certainly did some damage, but comparing an old design of a reactor that was operated under the USSR, to a modern design of reactor under completely different governance is irrelevant IMO. Next on the list is obviously fukushima which was entirely preventable. It was well known that the flood wall was not high enough, and the operators had been repeatedly warned but chose to not do anything about it. Keeping the backup generators in a basement is obviously also a brain dead move that should never have been allowed, but somehow it was. Nonetheless, these are issues with incompetent management and oversight, not nuclear power.
If we then move on from those two incidents, nothing of note has actually happened. Nuclear power is a lot like flying. Traveling by plane is extremely safe, but when something does happen it is immediate news, regardless of the actual scale of the incident. Meanwhile car crashes kill people every day and nobody bats an eye.
Nuclear power is literally the greenest, most reliable, and most effective form of power available to us.
except for:
Waste is literally a solved problem, bury it underground in containers. A reasonably sized shelter can cover our needs for a looooong time.
Lack of uranium is news to me, but a quick google search seems to indicate that it is mostly a supply/demand type situation. There is plenty out there, just not necessarily profitable to extract it. But, nothing lasts forever, that is true.
Water shortages are entirely a local problem dependent on where the plant is placed. So literally a non issue in any sensible location.
Water is not “wasted” for cooling. It is pumped in, used for cooling, then pumped out. No water is lost or wasted in the process. This extra heat extracted in the water can then also be used for heating, thus increasing the efficiency of the system.
Heightened threat in war, yeah, but that is a senseless argument, and also very much dependent on geography and politics. This is in no way a problem with nuclear power, this is a problem with war.
The investment costs are definitely high, which is why nuclear power should be run by the state, and not a for profit business.
The whole nuclear accidents thing keeps getting brought up as an argument, but I do not see the relevance. Chernobyl certainly did some damage, but comparing an old design of a reactor that was operated under the USSR, to a modern design of reactor under completely different governance is irrelevant IMO. Next on the list is obviously fukushima which was entirely preventable. It was well known that the flood wall was not high enough, and the operators had been repeatedly warned but chose to not do anything about it. Keeping the backup generators in a basement is obviously also a brain dead move that should never have been allowed, but somehow it was. Nonetheless, these are issues with incompetent management and oversight, not nuclear power.
If we then move on from those two incidents, nothing of note has actually happened. Nuclear power is a lot like flying. Traveling by plane is extremely safe, but when something does happen it is immediate news, regardless of the actual scale of the incident. Meanwhile car crashes kill people every day and nobody bats an eye.