Nuclear power has a horrible image for very good reason. There are devastating consequences when something goes wrong (nobody will insure your plant), horrible economics relying on large subsidies, storage requirements that exceed the lifetimes of any previous civilisation, operators having a history of shady practices like not reporting incidents, requirement for strong centralised (large corporations) control (that's why authoritarian states like it so much).
People always point that this is all not inherent and could be fixed by enough research (and new regulations), but why would you? Renewables have none of these issues and are much cheaper. If baseload is an issue, we know how to fix this, modernize your electricity grid to be smarter (there is always wind/sun somewhere) and invest in research into storage (that would also be needed for nuclear.
I don't get the obsession with nuclear, it does not make sense on an economical, political and environmental level.
> I don't get the obsession with nuclear, it does not make sense on an economical, political and environmental level.
I have a rather simple suggestion to resolve that. Ban fossil fuels for large scale power plants and heating plants.
Under those conditions, if nuclear is more expensive, political nightmare and economical worse than the alternative then don't use nuclear. If on the other hand people just want to use renewable when its in optimal weather conditions and then use fossil fuels because a stable energy grid is more important than the ban on burning fossil fuels, then no. At that point I rather people build that expensive, political nightmare, and waste producing nuclear plant.
As the old green movement slogan went. Keep the coal in the ground. Stop the pipeline. The sun is setting on the oil industry. It time to Get out of the Combustion Engine.
The obsession with fossil fuels has run its course. Nuclear has problems but if that is the cost we have to pay in order to ban fossil fuels than I will happily pay it. I don't demand anything more than that, but I won't settle for less either. It is criminal that enlighten countries who talk large about the current climate crisis also build fresh new fossil fueled power plants as energy demands goes up. Just like nations created a treaty against blowing up nukes in the atmosphere, there need to be one against turning the planet into a desert just because its cheap and can be done with minimum political consequences.
People always point that this is all not inherent and could be fixed by enough research (and new regulations), but why would you? Renewables have none of these issues and are much cheaper. If baseload is an issue, we know how to fix this, modernize your electricity grid to be smarter (there is always wind/sun somewhere) and invest in research into storage (that would also be needed for nuclear.
I don't get the obsession with nuclear, it does not make sense on an economical, political and environmental level.