Is there any realistic scenario in the next 30 years in which we move to zero carbon dioxide emissions where Nuclear energy will not play a vastly larger role than it does today?
Even with the tiny amount of R&D and lack of subsidies that has gone into it compared to other energy sources it’s already one of the safest forms of energy per kwh energy produced, it’s one of the cleanest (the waste is actualy containable instead of being pumped into the atmosphere). It’s easily scalable. Not dependent on wind or solar that is not always available. It takes up about 1/360th the space of an equivalent wind park and about 1/75th that of a solar park.
The only real argument against it would bet that current reactors are not economically viable and take too long to construct. The first argument could also be made for solar and wind yet we pump trillions into that. And the second might be solved through R&D in projects such as SMR’s.
Outside of that, every argument I hear against nuclear energy is basically: muh feelings.
Even with the tiny amount of R&D and lack of subsidies that has gone into it compared to other energy sources it’s already one of the safest forms of energy per kwh energy produced, it’s one of the cleanest (the waste is actualy containable instead of being pumped into the atmosphere). It’s easily scalable. Not dependent on wind or solar that is not always available. It takes up about 1/360th the space of an equivalent wind park and about 1/75th that of a solar park.
The only real argument against it would bet that current reactors are not economically viable and take too long to construct. The first argument could also be made for solar and wind yet we pump trillions into that. And the second might be solved through R&D in projects such as SMR’s.
Outside of that, every argument I hear against nuclear energy is basically: muh feelings.
