Welcome to our community forums, full of great people, ideas and excitement. Please register if you would like to take part.

This is extra text with a test link..

Register Now


No announcement yet.

Do you support nuclear energy as an alternative energy source to combat climate change?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Do you support nuclear energy as an alternative energy source to combat climate change?

    I do, but wondering on others.

  • #2
    Yes, in the short term it's preferable to hydrocarbon fuels. Focusing on a variety of renewables (solar, wind, hydroelectric, tidal, hydrogen fusion) I think is probably a better option long-term, because eventually the issue of how to dispose of nuclear waste will become as important as the current issue of reducing CO2 emissions. France (which gets about 70% of its electricity from nuclear fission power) claims it produces 10g/inhabitant/year of high-level nuclear waste now (France is quite secretive about the details of their nuclear waste disposal, for "national security" reasons and there are claims of EDF secretly disposing of waste in Siberia). The USA produces about 6g per person/year (2000MT a year in total) - if the US relied on nuclear fission as much as France, they'd produce 20g of high-level waste per person - so if the French model is followed, nuclear waste will become a problem more slowly than if the US model is followed. If the world was to get 70% of its power from nuclear fission, the amount of high-level nuclear waste would be between 76740MT and 162195MT a year (depending on how much of the world follows either the France or US model). I'm not sure at what point nuclear waste would become too difficult to safely dispose of, since google searches come back either with people who are staunchly pro-nuclear and think not even entertaining the idea of thinking about the risks makes them intelligent or on the other side, people who are completely anti-nuclear and again offer no information of value. If nuclear waste isn't sufficiently managed, countries that chose to plan to build their entire future on a foundation of nuclear power will find themselves having to spend more to adjust their energy production infrastructure yet again.

    Of course renewables might not be viable for every country if they're producing their own energy, in which case long-term political co-operation between countries can't be separated from the issue of meeting energy demands. Another thing that might have to be considered is whether nuclear waste creates extra risk in the event of a war, due to either the enemy purposely sabotaging waste management efforts or the pressures of war causing waste management protocols to not be followed properly. If safe disposal is dependent on political co-operation, then true renewables could be a more risk-free option, depending on what threats those renewables are likely to face during a war or time of political non-cooperation (eg hydroelectric can be threatened by bombs or by upstream countries using up the water. Not to mention that some renewables could be adversely affected by climate or environmental changes such as drought or something like volcanic ash blocking sunlight, so maybe a more stable source of energy like nuclear fission should be kept on standby just in case).

    France figures: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdo...=rep1&type=pdf
    USA figures: http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/nucl...ergy-factsheet
    Last edited by wolffanghameha; 07-03-2021, 07:58 AM.

    (aka TrunksinSwimmingTrunks aka daman)

    “Planets are just places for people to stand on. Planets are just rocks. It takes people to make it a world. You can have as many “Earths” as you want. I only care about what’s inside.” – Sakamoto Tatsuma

    Kamikaze Pyro is a girl? olsiw


    • #3
      The only real problem I have with it is that I feel we're too late for it. At the current rate the Earth will fail the 1.5 degree pathway in 10 years time. Building a nuclear power plant takes 10 years, it's good for long term goals, say 2050, but we can't fool ourselves into thinking it will help us with the goals set for 2030. There also isn't enough Uranium to go around for a massive switch to nuclear energy for all countries. There's going to need to be a lot more research into alternative nuclear power such as nuclear fission and thorium reactors, but so far those seem like a purely utopian dream still.


      • #4
        yes nuclear energy is goated and we should store all the waste under the ocean floors


        • #5
          Nuclear comes with a lot of pros and cons. The pros I can think of is that nuclear energy is highly efficient while being low on greenhouse emissions. It also has low human cost, Low environmental impacts, can be built in many places, and can operate in a multitude of climates. On the contrary, it also has high upfront costs, generates nuclear waste, and the chance of accidents. However, said accidents are quite rare. There are a lot of myths surrounding nuclear energy as well that makes it seem more dangerous than it actually is.


          • #6
            I would say yes, because nowadays it already prooved to be a good way to make electricity.