Fun fact. Including all accidents, nuclear power released way less radioactivity than coal burning. There’s only a little radioactivity in the coal, but we burn a lot of it.
The radiation emitted by coal power plants is well documented, raising Cancer rates in the surrounding areas. And that’s the normal operation, not a large scale accident like Chernobyl.
Radioactive waste has a very limited area of effect, most especially when its transported to large underground man made caverns located in areas that are intentionally chosen for their relative isolation from both civilization and wildlife.
Compare that to fossil fuels such as oil or coal that, not only burn and spread their radioactive isotopes throughout the atmosphere globally, but also damage our atmosphere beyond repair (in a time period that humans require to survive).
Nuclear energy is preferential over fossil fuels BY FAR.
let me guess… you have never considered, that our uranium ore sources only cover up to 75 years of energy at current usage, it basically has the same issues as coal or oil.
factor in the mining of uranium ore also damages the workers and area it is mined in, it would not be feasible to add more than about 10-20% of nuclear energy generation of what is currently present
factor in the mining of uranium ore also damages the workers and area it is mined in,
Damn near every single metal you’ve interacted with was mined out of the ground and refined through inhumane conditions.
The difference is those metals generally are just pollution and litter at the end of the day. Uranium and other fissionable materials can actually provide clean energy, and is often safer
“The currently identified uranium resources are sufficient to meet both low- and high-growth
nuclear capacity needs through 2050 and beyond. However, these resources will require further
development for production. In both scenarios, even if nuclear capacity remains stable at 2050
levels through the end of the century, cumulative demand could exceed the current identified
uranium resource base of nearly 8 million tonnes by the 2080s under the high-growth demand
scenario and by the 2110s under the low-growth demand scenario outlined in this edition.” IAEA Uranium 2024 report.
https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2025-04/7683_uranium_2024_-_resources_production_and_demand_2025-04-22_14-29-2_928.pdf
Most nuclear power we have today was designed as a bomb factory (or derived from that design). The power output was almost an afterthought.
There are a lot of newer designs that are a massive improvements on the old. Some “eat” the radioactive waste of older plants. Other use pathways that don’t produce long term nuclear waste. They also don’t produce material suitable for atomic weapons.
Unfortunately, the anti-nuclear movement kicked in just as those designs were set to enter construction. We’ve lost decades of improvements that they should have gained. Even worse, a lot of the engineers have now retired or passed. It will take a decade or 2 to rebuild the knowledge base to suitable levels.
Basically, nuclear could be incredibly clean and safe. Short sited governments, and knee jerk reactions killed it. It should be part of the solution, but it’s now likely too late to bring it back in at the levels required.
Nuclear waste is made out to be scarier than it really is. The area it takes up is tiny compared to the massive ash ponds of coal plants that are far more toxic. The waste also still has commercial value, which is why it’s mostly sitting around in storage pools. It’s dangerous, but not significantly more so than other types of waste or things like electrical substations.
I was actually about to comment, is nuclear power really clean? Radioactive waste seems like a pretty significant byproduct to me
Fun fact. Including all accidents, nuclear power released way less radioactivity than coal burning. There’s only a little radioactivity in the coal, but we burn a lot of it.
sure… that is why fukushima and pripyat are completely safe to live in… it is less radiation than all of the coal in the world *facepalm*
The radiation emitted by coal power plants is well documented, raising Cancer rates in the surrounding areas. And that’s the normal operation, not a large scale accident like Chernobyl.
With regards to deaths per Wh, including disasters, nuclear is safer than all fossil fuels, hydro and wind, only pv is safer.
PV is safer, less expensive even with storage, easier to recycle and it is the fastest growing energy.
Radioactive waste has a very limited area of effect, most especially when its transported to large underground man made caverns located in areas that are intentionally chosen for their relative isolation from both civilization and wildlife.
Compare that to fossil fuels such as oil or coal that, not only burn and spread their radioactive isotopes throughout the atmosphere globally, but also damage our atmosphere beyond repair (in a time period that humans require to survive).
Nuclear energy is preferential over fossil fuels BY FAR.
let me guess… you have never considered, that our uranium ore sources only cover up to 75 years of energy at current usage, it basically has the same issues as coal or oil.
factor in the mining of uranium ore also damages the workers and area it is mined in, it would not be feasible to add more than about 10-20% of nuclear energy generation of what is currently present
Having worked in one the world’s largest uranium mines, that second paragraph is so wrong
Damn near every single metal you’ve interacted with was mined out of the ground and refined through inhumane conditions.
The difference is those metals generally are just pollution and litter at the end of the day. Uranium and other fissionable materials can actually provide clean energy, and is often safer
https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/
Given everything else you’ve said is bullshit, I’m calling bullshit on this too.
Also, source?
“The currently identified uranium resources are sufficient to meet both low- and high-growth nuclear capacity needs through 2050 and beyond. However, these resources will require further development for production. In both scenarios, even if nuclear capacity remains stable at 2050 levels through the end of the century, cumulative demand could exceed the current identified uranium resource base of nearly 8 million tonnes by the 2080s under the high-growth demand scenario and by the 2110s under the low-growth demand scenario outlined in this edition.” IAEA Uranium 2024 report. https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2025-04/7683_uranium_2024_-_resources_production_and_demand_2025-04-22_14-29-2_928.pdf
Can’t even read your own fucking sources 🤦
Nuclear doesn’t contribute to the climate change and is very safe when handled properly.
Most nuclear power we have today was designed as a bomb factory (or derived from that design). The power output was almost an afterthought.
There are a lot of newer designs that are a massive improvements on the old. Some “eat” the radioactive waste of older plants. Other use pathways that don’t produce long term nuclear waste. They also don’t produce material suitable for atomic weapons.
Unfortunately, the anti-nuclear movement kicked in just as those designs were set to enter construction. We’ve lost decades of improvements that they should have gained. Even worse, a lot of the engineers have now retired or passed. It will take a decade or 2 to rebuild the knowledge base to suitable levels.
Basically, nuclear could be incredibly clean and safe. Short sited governments, and knee jerk reactions killed it. It should be part of the solution, but it’s now likely too late to bring it back in at the levels required.
Nuclear waste is made out to be scarier than it really is. The area it takes up is tiny compared to the massive ash ponds of coal plants that are far more toxic. The waste also still has commercial value, which is why it’s mostly sitting around in storage pools. It’s dangerous, but not significantly more so than other types of waste or things like electrical substations.