Yes and no. Now, I believe nuclear power should be part of our sustainable energy plans, and I do believe that there is much ignorance and irrationality among the general public when it comes to radiation in general- while we are mostly passed any real percentage of people thinking radiation can create fantasy fiction mutants, the common perceptions are skewed on what risks and dangers actually are where radiation is involved. Recent trending internet memes illustrate the point that a lot of people don’t even understand the basic principles on how nuclear power works- so the public at large is not in a great position for making informed decisions on the subject.
With that said a nuclear energy isn’t all candy and rainbows. The fact that there are quite a few long running or long decommissioned reactors in the world that have operated without any major incidents is true- however…
Conventional wars tend to happen. They happen with some frequency through history and are destructive and deadly. In all of history there is one war where nuclear weapons were used, but in fairness that was true first war they were an option in really. In a post nuclear world the risk of conventional war between nuclear powers is slim. It is speculation but likely true to say that direct war between countries like China, Russia, the USA, the UK, France etc. didn’t occur post WW2 in massive and ongoing fashion because those nations had nuclear deterrence. The trade however is living in a world where IF one world leader has a particularly bad day or the wrong misunderstanding or accident or rebellion occurs.. our species and at least our way of life could be completely wiped out.
Likewise nuclear power can be thought of abstractly to take centuries of damage of “conventional plants” and condense that into a single day- a day that can linger for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. It is like being given the choice between being punched every day you work or not be punched but if you or anyone you work with ever make a mistake you will have a body part cut off, and when you retire you’ll be handed a massive bill that you and all your children for ten thousands generations must pay or have a body part chopped off AND be punched every day?
Someday we COULD have more efficient reactors and processes. We COULD find ways to use or render inert waste products. And if someday never comes we are not looking too great if we place too many eggs in that basket. And someday we could have fusion or some other technology that makes fission and many or most of its problems obsolete. Coal and gas plants, even solar panels and such- they can be difficult to remedy the environment and dispose of them safely- especially if they are massive installations- but the challenge of decommissioning coal plants and returning the environment to a reasonable state and not risking dangerous contamination that lingers are generally better than if we had a network of nuclear reactors that needed to shut down as a better technology has replaced them.
Am I saying no to nuclear power? I’m not. We haven’t found a power source that can better match demand while mitigating the crisis of resources and pollution and climate change, and it’s approaching 100 years soon. Even if we developed fusion within the next 30 years- that’s a long time in a human life even if it is a blip in human history. As I’ve said before- the best thing we can do for the environment and to help ensure future humans have a comfortable lifestyle is to reduce what we use. Cut back even if it hurts a bit or requires us to rethink some things and adapt our society. Beyond that we can try to use energy sources we have intelligently. Where geothermal or hydroelectric or wind or solar or kinetic tide or such make sense we should use those. I don’t think eliminating all carbon fuel plants is wise as there are places they make sense to use and having diversity in the power grid and fuel we use is sort of important. But nuclear can and should be a viable option to fill out
a comprehensive power grid. With proper design and planning we can help mitigate potential future issues if fission power is replaced. Some plants could be kept running for a period to produce power and then decommissioned. We might keep a few running long term. A plan on using reactors as research reactors or production reactors to create useful isotopes or be used in production of next generation materials and materials treatments, and designs that facilitate the relatively safe and painless decommissioning and reclaiming of sites. Over designing such power plants seems prudent, with hopes the costs can be amortized over long operational life spans. There are many possible options. Regardless there are valid concerns about nuclear power and monkeys playing with the power of a star should be mindful and respect what it is we hold in our hands to help avoid the sorts of problems familiarity and complacency or carelessness can bring- but general fears of nuclear power are often i
With that said a nuclear energy isn’t all candy and rainbows. The fact that there are quite a few long running or long decommissioned reactors in the world that have operated without any major incidents is true- however…