I see nuclear being the best option in combination with the wind / wave / sun etc renewables which are all well and good, but not consistent (relying on the weather)
so a minimal amount of nuclear, used the right way, gives you such minimal downsides as to be basically negligible (at least in comparison to coal / oil / gas) https://www.national...ed-clean-energy
the amounts of fuel required are tiny in comparison, can be reused (https://www.orano.gr...g-and-recycling) and the minimal remains can be contained pretty safely
is it perfect, no, but it's a million times better than the total mess we have now.
and it saves the rapidly diminishing reserves of oil that we could put to better use in our limited-mileage-use classic cars
I think nuclear gets this bad rap because of people with memories of mushroom clouds and deformed people with all their teeth falling out, but things have come on a long way since all that. even Chernobyl that huge disaster only caused somewhere between 30 and 50 deaths depending who you believe. Fukushima .. 1 death a long time afterwards from lung cancer but zero at the time directly attributable to nuclear issues (loads from the tsunami though obviously)
Edited by stuart bowes, 31 January 2024 - 11:16 AM.