Its only not as profitable due to government subsidies and taxes. In terms of normalized profit, its pretty close to natural gas, and blows solar and wind out the water.
Not so sure what we mean by “natural” or “clean.” Nuclear power is generally a very efficient form of power. It is generally low maintenance and has long service and refueling cycles. Nuclear plants typically can produce peak energy far more consistently than other available power supplies- with solar barely producing peak capacity a quarter of the time and even fossil plants only able to each their potential about 50% of the time- nuclear power supplies peak power over 95% of the time.
“Natural” is somewhat of a nonsense word- especially when we are talking about harnessing energy. What within the natural laws of science would be an “unnatural” way to harness energy? The sun is nuclear (primarily Fusion not fission) and naturally occurring pile reactors are very rare to be found- but without any involvement of humans “nuclear reactors” have been created where water and fission material have met by chance under the right conditions.
But... that hardly seems to matter. I suppose chemical dissolution of substances or turning a big wheel could also be said to be “natural” sources of energy- but that isn’t itself an argument that those are somehow good ideas.
As for clean... I’m not sure Uranium mines and processing plants and their surroundings are what I’d call “clean,” nor would I call radioactive waste and heavy metals in large quantities “clean.” There are also of course various gases and other byproducts produced in the fuel cycle as well. Nuclear power, in its production, and under proper containment- doesn’t produce wide spread environmental changes.
Nuclear energy is an effective and efficient source of energy that can be very safe. It is one of many tools that we have that if used intelligently together, could supply our power needs and minimize or mitigate the undesirable changes our power production has on the environment.
When we think of “natural” we have to realize that in nature- nothing tends to be “one and only” but instead exists as part of a complex system. Take the energy needs of a living creature- the more specialized those needs are the less likely that species is to survive in general- especially without “unnatural” intervention such as human conservation efforts.
Likewise- the more our human made systems rely on a single central thing- the more easily our entire system can be disrupted. In designing systems that are sustainable and can integrate to nature- we must think cybernetically and create systems that both integrate to each other as well as nature.
“End to end” design- this is how self regulating systems of our planet and even physics work. What is used in one process is transformed into a new thing- fruit is eaten by a monkey, the monkey turns it into energy and excretes waste, the waste is eaten by bugs, broken down into forms that feed the soil so plants can survive. Each organism has adapted to claim a resource that is available to it, and has less competition than another.
Our systems must be designed with the same mind set- so that the waste of one process feeds another process, so that what we build in a place is designed for the environment and ecosystems of that place. So that we can make use of benefits provided by native factors to move the process along. That would be the most “natural” form of energy and technology.
If the cost of initial upkeep and maintenance lowers you'll see more advancements in nuclear energy. Also, ik its a bot, im reference to thorium reactors the big cost is the housing as the molten salt corrodes away any container holding it. Having to completely replace your system every few years is extremely expensive.
I actually helped worked on a liquid fluoride reactor at my college. It creates clean water from salt water and isotopes that can be used to target cancer cells specifically. It has a fail safe to where if the reactor gets to hot it melts a plug at the bottom and the fluid drains into a tank and solidifies in that. It creates more power than a regular fusion reactor and zero risk.
It's times like these I refer to an article at Journalists Resource called "Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power". Basically it states, after reviewing multiple sources, that;
"The mean value of carbon dioxide emissions over the lifetime of a nuclear reactor is 66 grams per kilowatt-hour of electricity."
"Nuclear power emits more greenhouse gases per kilowatt hour than all renewables, including biomass (up to 41 grams per kilowatt hour), hydroelectric and solar (up to 13 grams per kilowatt hour), and wind (up to 10 grams per kilowatt hour)."
"Reactors produce significantly less carbon dioxide than all fossil fuels. The cleanest is natural gas (443 grams per kilowatt hour), while the most carbon dioxide is produced by coal (up to 1,050 grams per kilowatt hour)."
technically the most natural way to generate power would either be using biofuel or by manual labor moving a crank.
modern nuclear power is rather clean tho. Itll never happen because public opinion on it is still that of a ticking atomic bomb sitting in your back yard but it is a good thing.
Nuclear power isn't going to be a thing until the oil runs out. Oil is much too profitable, oil companies have bought their way into politics, and politicians will keep hampering the development of nuclear energy to keep the oil money flowing. No advanced degree in econimics or physics needed to see that.
"The mean value of carbon dioxide emissions over the lifetime of a nuclear reactor is 66 grams per kilowatt-hour of electricity."
"Nuclear power emits more greenhouse gases per kilowatt hour than all renewables, including biomass (up to 41 grams per kilowatt hour), hydroelectric and solar (up to 13 grams per kilowatt hour), and wind (up to 10 grams per kilowatt hour)."
"Reactors produce significantly less carbon dioxide than all fossil fuels. The cleanest is natural gas (443 grams per kilowatt hour), while the most carbon dioxide is produced by coal (up to 1,050 grams per kilowatt hour)."
modern nuclear power is rather clean tho. Itll never happen because public opinion on it is still that of a ticking atomic bomb sitting in your back yard but it is a good thing.