The Fantasy of Reviving Nuclear Energy
This is a dishonest argument. Opponents of nuclear power have done everything possible over the las…
Speaking of 50+ years - the US government has subsidized nuclear energy for 50+ years, estimated at close to $300 billion, helping make it appear viable. Tax dollars support construction, research & development, mining & enrichment plus accident liability is artificially limited.
Even with massive nuclear energy subsides, known concerns and unanswered issues make nuclear power a poor choice. Expensive and deadly catastrophic (even partial) failures plus no long-term waste disposal are some of the 800 lb gorillas.
It takes 10+ years before a well-designed plant produces energy and few if any neighborhoods want one near them. There are limited ore reserves so electricity from nukes, already the most expensive (with subsidies), won't become less costly.
Solar and wind power are less expensive and costs continue to decline. Cradle-to-grave analysis demonstrates renewable energy is environmentally benign compared to nuclear (and fossil fuel) energy.
Considered most simply - ask friends and family if they'd rather live near a wind/solar farm or a nuclear power plant.
Be the first to reply to this disagreement.