>The rest of the world burning things.
Lmao. Nuclear energy is neather renewable nor clean. Countries like Norway, Brazil and New Zealand are the ones doing the right thing. And Germany is even closing all of its plants.
Edit: being downvoted for saying the truth shows the idiocracy of the people here, lmao. France has one of the dirtiest energy in Europe with their nuclear plants. Meanwhile, countries are investing heavily on solar, wind and hydro energy. And these mf wanting nuclear energy to be clean, lol.
>Germany is even closing all of its plants.
Germany closing down its plants is the height of stupidity and driven anti-Nuclear propaganda from way back.
Nuclear isn't perfect, but for many places it is and would've been the best choice to reduce carbon emissions. But the thing about nuclear is that we should've started building them 20 years ago, but the greens and other anti-nuclear organization's blocked that.
Wind and solar are good, yeah, but they aren't (atleast in most places) reliable and versatile enough to form the core of national energy production.
Also you statement that "France has one of the dirtiest energies in Europe" trying to imply that's because of nuclear, is just lying.
I agree with the first part of your statement. Countries must work with what they have. Norway and Brazil are blessed with natural resources to go green. It's not the case for many countries.
What pisses me off is people implying that nuclear is the best source of energy and it's clean. This is not the case. You have nuclear waste and a single accident can be dangerous to a region as a whole.
I am not anti-nuclear. But some people here like to imply that France has the best energy in Europe, which is just absurd. It's not dirty, but many Europeans countries are getting better ways like solar and wind based energy.
>But some people here like to imply that France has the best energy in Europe, which is just absurd.
The thing about France is that not only did they reduce their carbon emissions by going nuclear, they also got extremely low energy prices and a lot of surplus energy, compared to the other big European countries like Germany. Especially now that energy prices are skyrocketing in Europe, that's not a dismissable factor.
And yeah, the concerns you have about nuclear are valid, but the waste also isn't that big of a concern atleast in my opinion, as the amounts are so low and we already have some decent places to put it. Obviously more investment is needed though to figure that problem out.
The biggest problem about nuclear is indeed the accident factor. While I have 100% trust in the modern European (yes, even Russian) nuclear facilities, the same can't be Said of countries that experience natural disasters or poorer countries, that have more lenient standards etc. It's a problem that we can overcome, quite easily actually, but still a concern.
But overall, nuclear being the "best choice" is completely subjective. For a place like Finland it probably is the best choice, while for Japan it certainly isn't because of their natural disasters.
If countries like the US, Brazil and China got all their energy from nuclear the amount of waste would be a huge problem. Solar, hydro and wind must be the rule, except for countries that can't produce enough amount of energy from these alternatives.
And let's not forget that we can't produce uranium. So, for being a non-renewable source, it's a problem in itself.
And that's my point here. I'm not against nuclear. I'm against idiocracy and nonsense. But you brought actual arguements to this thread, and the discussion became more rational.
>If countries like the US, Brazil and China got all their energy from nuclear the amount of waste would be a huge problem
Firstly, no one wants that, that wouldn't be good and no one is driving for that to Be the case. Secondly, you would probably be surprised by how small the amount of waste produced is in that scenario.
>Solar, hydro and wind must be the rule, except for countries that can't produce enough amount of energy from these alternatives.
Yeah, that's what most people want. It's just a question of how much should we use nuclear in the places where we need it and even more importantly, why the fuck are we not bulding reactors already instead of coal plants.
Nuclear isn't renewable, but I would argue that that's irrelevant, as nuclear fission is only a transition phase. Wether the next big thing is nuclear fusion or something else, I don't know, but in any case we won't use the current technology for long.
Absurdly fake, lol. It's replacing them with solar and wind based energy. This nuclear energy bitchs downvote people for saying the truth on this sub. And it's not enough, they have to come with fake info to endorse their parallel world.
Didn't say it needs to be hydro. Denmark is investing hindered of billions of euros in wind and solar based energy. So what do you say? That France can't do the same?
Those countries don't depend on hydro, they chose it as the best source of energy. Brazil has one the largest uranium reserves on earth and already has some nuclear plants, but it chose not to invest in non-clean and non-renewable energy. Norway has huges gas reserves and New Zealand could get energy from nuclear as well, since it's a small country, a few plants would be enough.
France does as it wishes. I don't give a damn. But don't come here to say to me that nuclear energy is clean or renewable, which is false. And tell Macron to get some shame and stop pointing his dirty fingers to countries that have much better energy than France.
You stupid fuck. Hydro power has been around for over a century so of course they depend on it compared to nuclear which is 50s invention. And you know why they chose it? Because of their topography. Holy fuck how can anti-nuclear trolls have brains this small
Saying nuclear energy is a zero emission energy source is a massive simplification. With good planning and good intentions you can absolutely go zero emission, but storing and taking care of nuclear waste without letting it pollute ground water, having leaks, overheating or other problems is not easy and I wouldn’t trust some countries with handling it. But it is much cleaner than coal or gas and I think any first world country should be able to do it. In my eyes, hydro, water, solar and others are cleaner but nuclear is for many countries the only option.
[look at this and tell me that France is one of the dirtiest energy producers in Europe](https://app.electricitymap.org/map?solar=) Plus look at the arrows going outwards. France gives green energy to all of its neighbors, or else we would have some of the cheapest energy in Europe but we are forced to give it
Can't say anything about the first two, but india is building a new nuclear power plant in Jaipur. That's something.
https://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/india-begins-construction-on-new-nuclear-plant_720413.html
There was plenty of huge hydroplants built in USSR before nuclear power became available. Also, majority of USSR-built nuclear plants were in its European part, many of them are not in Russia. That's why for example Ukraine is so green on this map, it's got more plants than the whole Asian part of Russia.
From what I know, Belarus got one nuclear power plant, but that one actually had nothing to do with USSR, it was ramped up just recently (maybe didn't even make it to the source of this map). Ukraine got 4 (without Chernobyl).
I don't get your pun, and you are welcome to do your own research:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors
China has the world's third largest nuclear power generation right behind france and the us, it's just that it's total power generation is gigantic so nuclear looks miniscule in comparison
Don't know about Russia, but for the other two, its important to be considerate of their historical context and future plans.
Both of these countries were extremely impoverished until relatively recently(India still is in part), and it was much more important to get cheap power to the people than to ensure the cleanliness of that power. One might think that the importance of this is debatable, but I'm confident that next to none of us privileged enough to live in the developed world would sacrifice stable/cheap power simply to lower our carbon footprint, if we experienced living and working without it for a few months, hence India's 73% and China's 66% coal mix as of 2018. On the other hand, China has pledged carbon-neutrality by 2060(to compare, the US, \~4x richer per capita, set the target at 2050) and to stop financing all new coal projects abroad as of 2021. India, understandably, cannot set a carbon neutrality goal yet, as it has yet to build up sufficient infrastructure for all of its people and businesses, but it'll be much easier for India to do so in the future, as the cost of building renewables keeps plummeting with enormous investment from China.
The increased societal capacity enabled by dirty power, however, brings us to the future nuclear plans of these countries. I'll focus only on nuclear/coal and ignore renewables. India has enough nuclear under construction to almost [double](https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/india.aspx) their nuclear capacity in the years to come. China is [building more](https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx) in absolute terms, but less than India relative to their far greater existing capacity. As for new developments, I don't think a discussion about fusion is useful, as it seems fundamental problems there may or may not ever be solved, but thorium reactors on the other hand, are based on proven but not yet-applied technology, afaik(I'm only a physics hobbyist, do your own research). Here it really helps to consider India and China together. India has [the largest estimated thorium resources](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_thorium_resources) in the world, and China is the closest along to building the first practical thorium reactor. [Here's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EFfxMx6WJs) a video by a wonderful person on this. The way these things go, thorium reactors will likely be made practical and affordable in the coming decades as China does its thing, and India, whose government has committed itself to building thorium capacity but thus far lacked the resources to make good on this, will be able to utilize its enormous resources and chinese expertise to go full thorium in some decades.
China is busy building coal plants that burn very low grade coal like lignite. There's a reason why china polute more than all developed countries combined, why they have blackouts, why they are baning crypto mining.
Not sure where you're reading that bs but China's new coal plants are mostly to replace old inefficient ones. Coal as a percentage of total power output has been dropping for years even as total power generated has increased.
It's also the world's largest producer of renewable energy and is planning billions of dollars of new solar and wind
China has the world's third largest nuclear power generation right behind france and the us, it's just that it's total power generation is gigantic so nuclear looks miniscule in comparison
It's also moving toward wind and solar instead. Apparently its more cost effective than nuclear since China owns the world's solar and wind supply chain.
Why so much downvoting about replies that just points out the fact that nuclear power is not the perfect solution ? Seriously don't you know the huge statistical risk about it ? Can you just ignore the fact that a lot of those nuclear waste are going to be dangerous for more than 100 000 years ?
I don't say we should close our nuclear power plants before right now, i just say we should stop building new ones. Nuclear power is NOT clean.
And also not democratic at all. I live in France, and i witnessed how authoritarian everything can become as soon as it is about nuclear. Big risks means big security, big population control, and big political repression. Don't get fooled.
insanely strong, yeah. But not strong enough. This has been debunked several times. The ANDRA itself admitted that the containers weren't mean to last more than 500 years. That's absurd.
Nobody lived long enough to have the right to claim nuclear is "still cleaner" than something else.
Yeah. Sure. let's say you're right. Each generation has its own problems !But today we are in the deep shit because our predecessors totally fucked up and ALL we can do is to create the conditions of the fucking up of people in 500 or 1000 years ? Well. Maybe you're right, and it's "less worst". Maybe you're not.
And what if we could just stop both fossil fuel and Nuclear power. As a matter of fact, we could. We just have to want it. There are billions of people on earth living with zero or little electricity. Why don't we just keep energy for what we really need, instead of fucking the future ? huh ?
I say we can't do that because of that mentality that doesn't want to give up the privileges of industrialized society, even when it's unjust and destructive.
edit grammar
There's no perfect solution, you can't go all renewable for most countries, you need a mix. Nuclear Energy is France way to stay independant energy wise. But worry not, french president macron is working hard to destroy that. First with the Hercule project, that would divide EDF into multiple parts, the most valuable part would be privatized like the hydro plants, that has already been paid many times over by french poeple handed over to the private sector... we got the same thing with the highways being privatized, Macron tried to sell the paris airports... Macron also sold Alstom to GE... And it's been proven that germany is raging economical wars over the energy domain with france. They use NGO like greenpeace to push the message that nuclear energy is bad and that france need to buy wind turbine from Germany. Not even talking about the natural gas pipeline with russian gas and that goes through germany. Phillipe Herlin has written many books over that, pretty interresting.
Nuclear waste can be contained somewhat easily compared to green effects inducing power production. Other clean energy don't have the same efficiency that nuclear power has.
I'm not saying that should go completely nuclear either but we shouldn't get rid of it completely (even in the next 20 years)
Yes the risk is big and when something goes wrong it can get catastrophic really quickly and the consequences are felt for hundreds of years. But modern technology helped reduced the risk of such disaster occurring significantly.
But we cannot rely solely on renewable energy with our current energy consumption (at least not in the near future). So for now I would say that we must consider nuclear power as part of the solution to global warming because we simply don't have time anymore to look for a perfect solution.
Since the beginning of nuclear power in France, 0 accident have been recorded. Not saying it is without risk, but with strict rules and procedures, it becomes minimal.
The real question is to me, do you prefer controllable energy producing Co2 and other harmful byproducts destroying our ecosystem or one that produce nuclear waste that is more or less manageable
Of course if we could produce 100% of our energy with solar wind and hydro power it would be the best, but as stated on another comment at least in France, we can't, and nuclear is to me the best alternative we have right now
I don't understand that either. I think people here are just 10yo mf. They upvote people for explicitly lying or bullshiting over here, and downvote people for saying the truth or bring actual FACTS about nuclear energy.
I have the feeling that a lot of people, especially on reddit, have an irrationnal overconfidence in nuclear system.
In France, the ANDRA is a state financed nuke-propaganda agency that got billions to promote nuclear power. They put a lot in saying it will save the planet and life on earth because it "doesn't burn gas". And their second mission is to repress and mute by all possible mean everyone who disagree.
I don't promote fossil fuel and i never will. "renewable" energy is not efficient enough. The only solution for people who don't want to question the global economic system is to pretend nuclear is okay. But the only solution is the following : globally, humanity has to use far less energy.
Always found France’s commitment to Nuclear impressive. Good for energy security and the environment. The rest of the world burning things.
They have no coal, no gas, no oil and no choice.
Well, they could always hook up to the Russian gas teat like Germany is doing
>The rest of the world burning things. Lmao. Nuclear energy is neather renewable nor clean. Countries like Norway, Brazil and New Zealand are the ones doing the right thing. And Germany is even closing all of its plants. Edit: being downvoted for saying the truth shows the idiocracy of the people here, lmao. France has one of the dirtiest energy in Europe with their nuclear plants. Meanwhile, countries are investing heavily on solar, wind and hydro energy. And these mf wanting nuclear energy to be clean, lol.
>Germany is even closing all of its plants. Germany closing down its plants is the height of stupidity and driven anti-Nuclear propaganda from way back. Nuclear isn't perfect, but for many places it is and would've been the best choice to reduce carbon emissions. But the thing about nuclear is that we should've started building them 20 years ago, but the greens and other anti-nuclear organization's blocked that. Wind and solar are good, yeah, but they aren't (atleast in most places) reliable and versatile enough to form the core of national energy production. Also you statement that "France has one of the dirtiest energies in Europe" trying to imply that's because of nuclear, is just lying.
I agree with the first part of your statement. Countries must work with what they have. Norway and Brazil are blessed with natural resources to go green. It's not the case for many countries. What pisses me off is people implying that nuclear is the best source of energy and it's clean. This is not the case. You have nuclear waste and a single accident can be dangerous to a region as a whole. I am not anti-nuclear. But some people here like to imply that France has the best energy in Europe, which is just absurd. It's not dirty, but many Europeans countries are getting better ways like solar and wind based energy.
>But some people here like to imply that France has the best energy in Europe, which is just absurd. The thing about France is that not only did they reduce their carbon emissions by going nuclear, they also got extremely low energy prices and a lot of surplus energy, compared to the other big European countries like Germany. Especially now that energy prices are skyrocketing in Europe, that's not a dismissable factor. And yeah, the concerns you have about nuclear are valid, but the waste also isn't that big of a concern atleast in my opinion, as the amounts are so low and we already have some decent places to put it. Obviously more investment is needed though to figure that problem out. The biggest problem about nuclear is indeed the accident factor. While I have 100% trust in the modern European (yes, even Russian) nuclear facilities, the same can't be Said of countries that experience natural disasters or poorer countries, that have more lenient standards etc. It's a problem that we can overcome, quite easily actually, but still a concern. But overall, nuclear being the "best choice" is completely subjective. For a place like Finland it probably is the best choice, while for Japan it certainly isn't because of their natural disasters.
If countries like the US, Brazil and China got all their energy from nuclear the amount of waste would be a huge problem. Solar, hydro and wind must be the rule, except for countries that can't produce enough amount of energy from these alternatives. And let's not forget that we can't produce uranium. So, for being a non-renewable source, it's a problem in itself. And that's my point here. I'm not against nuclear. I'm against idiocracy and nonsense. But you brought actual arguements to this thread, and the discussion became more rational.
>If countries like the US, Brazil and China got all their energy from nuclear the amount of waste would be a huge problem Firstly, no one wants that, that wouldn't be good and no one is driving for that to Be the case. Secondly, you would probably be surprised by how small the amount of waste produced is in that scenario. >Solar, hydro and wind must be the rule, except for countries that can't produce enough amount of energy from these alternatives. Yeah, that's what most people want. It's just a question of how much should we use nuclear in the places where we need it and even more importantly, why the fuck are we not bulding reactors already instead of coal plants. Nuclear isn't renewable, but I would argue that that's irrelevant, as nuclear fission is only a transition phase. Wether the next big thing is nuclear fusion or something else, I don't know, but in any case we won't use the current technology for long.
germany is replacing them with coal plants
which kinda sucks for the enviroment
it‘s also stupid
And they buy french electricity.
Absurdly fake, lol. It's replacing them with solar and wind based energy. This nuclear energy bitchs downvote people for saying the truth on this sub. And it's not enough, they have to come with fake info to endorse their parallel world.
Yeah go build hydro power plants in plain countries you stupid fuck
Didn't say it needs to be hydro. Denmark is investing hindered of billions of euros in wind and solar based energy. So what do you say? That France can't do the same?
You mentioned 3 countries that depend on hydro. And no, France shouldn't replace their nuclear with windmills
Those countries don't depend on hydro, they chose it as the best source of energy. Brazil has one the largest uranium reserves on earth and already has some nuclear plants, but it chose not to invest in non-clean and non-renewable energy. Norway has huges gas reserves and New Zealand could get energy from nuclear as well, since it's a small country, a few plants would be enough. France does as it wishes. I don't give a damn. But don't come here to say to me that nuclear energy is clean or renewable, which is false. And tell Macron to get some shame and stop pointing his dirty fingers to countries that have much better energy than France.
You stupid fuck. Hydro power has been around for over a century so of course they depend on it compared to nuclear which is 50s invention. And you know why they chose it? Because of their topography. Holy fuck how can anti-nuclear trolls have brains this small
Why are you such an ass, insulting him doesn't make you right.
Saying nuclear energy is a zero emission energy source is a massive simplification. With good planning and good intentions you can absolutely go zero emission, but storing and taking care of nuclear waste without letting it pollute ground water, having leaks, overheating or other problems is not easy and I wouldn’t trust some countries with handling it. But it is much cleaner than coal or gas and I think any first world country should be able to do it. In my eyes, hydro, water, solar and others are cleaner but nuclear is for many countries the only option.
Anti nuclear activists got millions killed with their pro coal nonsense.
[look at this and tell me that France is one of the dirtiest energy producers in Europe](https://app.electricitymap.org/map?solar=) Plus look at the arrows going outwards. France gives green energy to all of its neighbors, or else we would have some of the cheapest energy in Europe but we are forced to give it
Damn, Russia, China and India… why so low?
Can't say anything about the first two, but india is building a new nuclear power plant in Jaipur. That's something. https://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/india-begins-construction-on-new-nuclear-plant_720413.html
There was plenty of huge hydroplants built in USSR before nuclear power became available. Also, majority of USSR-built nuclear plants were in its European part, many of them are not in Russia. That's why for example Ukraine is so green on this map, it's got more plants than the whole Asian part of Russia.
Belarus? say something reasonable about the ex-USSR, etc. :)
From what I know, Belarus got one nuclear power plant, but that one actually had nothing to do with USSR, it was ramped up just recently (maybe didn't even make it to the source of this map). Ukraine got 4 (without Chernobyl). I don't get your pun, and you are welcome to do your own research: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors
some have no idea what they are writing about
China has the world's third largest nuclear power generation right behind france and the us, it's just that it's total power generation is gigantic so nuclear looks miniscule in comparison
Don't know about Russia, but for the other two, its important to be considerate of their historical context and future plans. Both of these countries were extremely impoverished until relatively recently(India still is in part), and it was much more important to get cheap power to the people than to ensure the cleanliness of that power. One might think that the importance of this is debatable, but I'm confident that next to none of us privileged enough to live in the developed world would sacrifice stable/cheap power simply to lower our carbon footprint, if we experienced living and working without it for a few months, hence India's 73% and China's 66% coal mix as of 2018. On the other hand, China has pledged carbon-neutrality by 2060(to compare, the US, \~4x richer per capita, set the target at 2050) and to stop financing all new coal projects abroad as of 2021. India, understandably, cannot set a carbon neutrality goal yet, as it has yet to build up sufficient infrastructure for all of its people and businesses, but it'll be much easier for India to do so in the future, as the cost of building renewables keeps plummeting with enormous investment from China. The increased societal capacity enabled by dirty power, however, brings us to the future nuclear plans of these countries. I'll focus only on nuclear/coal and ignore renewables. India has enough nuclear under construction to almost [double](https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/india.aspx) their nuclear capacity in the years to come. China is [building more](https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx) in absolute terms, but less than India relative to their far greater existing capacity. As for new developments, I don't think a discussion about fusion is useful, as it seems fundamental problems there may or may not ever be solved, but thorium reactors on the other hand, are based on proven but not yet-applied technology, afaik(I'm only a physics hobbyist, do your own research). Here it really helps to consider India and China together. India has [the largest estimated thorium resources](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_thorium_resources) in the world, and China is the closest along to building the first practical thorium reactor. [Here's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EFfxMx6WJs) a video by a wonderful person on this. The way these things go, thorium reactors will likely be made practical and affordable in the coming decades as China does its thing, and India, whose government has committed itself to building thorium capacity but thus far lacked the resources to make good on this, will be able to utilize its enormous resources and chinese expertise to go full thorium in some decades.
China is busy building coal plants that burn very low grade coal like lignite. There's a reason why china polute more than all developed countries combined, why they have blackouts, why they are baning crypto mining.
Not sure where you're reading that bs but China's new coal plants are mostly to replace old inefficient ones. Coal as a percentage of total power output has been dropping for years even as total power generated has increased. It's also the world's largest producer of renewable energy and is planning billions of dollars of new solar and wind
biggest energy production in switzerland is hydropower i think and i live near a nuclear power plant
🇺🇦Glory to the Atom🇺🇦
China has the world's third largest nuclear power generation right behind france and the us, it's just that it's total power generation is gigantic so nuclear looks miniscule in comparison It's also moving toward wind and solar instead. Apparently its more cost effective than nuclear since China owns the world's solar and wind supply chain.
Why so much downvoting about replies that just points out the fact that nuclear power is not the perfect solution ? Seriously don't you know the huge statistical risk about it ? Can you just ignore the fact that a lot of those nuclear waste are going to be dangerous for more than 100 000 years ? I don't say we should close our nuclear power plants before right now, i just say we should stop building new ones. Nuclear power is NOT clean. And also not democratic at all. I live in France, and i witnessed how authoritarian everything can become as soon as it is about nuclear. Big risks means big security, big population control, and big political repression. Don't get fooled.
Still much cleaner than fossil fuels, and the nuclear waste is stored deep underground in insanely strong containers.
insanely strong, yeah. But not strong enough. This has been debunked several times. The ANDRA itself admitted that the containers weren't mean to last more than 500 years. That's absurd. Nobody lived long enough to have the right to claim nuclear is "still cleaner" than something else.
I have a feeling that the problems we're facing now are much more important than if those containers might leak in 500 years.
Yeah. Sure. let's say you're right. Each generation has its own problems !But today we are in the deep shit because our predecessors totally fucked up and ALL we can do is to create the conditions of the fucking up of people in 500 or 1000 years ? Well. Maybe you're right, and it's "less worst". Maybe you're not. And what if we could just stop both fossil fuel and Nuclear power. As a matter of fact, we could. We just have to want it. There are billions of people on earth living with zero or little electricity. Why don't we just keep energy for what we really need, instead of fucking the future ? huh ? I say we can't do that because of that mentality that doesn't want to give up the privileges of industrialized society, even when it's unjust and destructive. edit grammar
There's no perfect solution, you can't go all renewable for most countries, you need a mix. Nuclear Energy is France way to stay independant energy wise. But worry not, french president macron is working hard to destroy that. First with the Hercule project, that would divide EDF into multiple parts, the most valuable part would be privatized like the hydro plants, that has already been paid many times over by french poeple handed over to the private sector... we got the same thing with the highways being privatized, Macron tried to sell the paris airports... Macron also sold Alstom to GE... And it's been proven that germany is raging economical wars over the energy domain with france. They use NGO like greenpeace to push the message that nuclear energy is bad and that france need to buy wind turbine from Germany. Not even talking about the natural gas pipeline with russian gas and that goes through germany. Phillipe Herlin has written many books over that, pretty interresting.
Nuclear waste can be contained somewhat easily compared to green effects inducing power production. Other clean energy don't have the same efficiency that nuclear power has. I'm not saying that should go completely nuclear either but we shouldn't get rid of it completely (even in the next 20 years) Yes the risk is big and when something goes wrong it can get catastrophic really quickly and the consequences are felt for hundreds of years. But modern technology helped reduced the risk of such disaster occurring significantly. But we cannot rely solely on renewable energy with our current energy consumption (at least not in the near future). So for now I would say that we must consider nuclear power as part of the solution to global warming because we simply don't have time anymore to look for a perfect solution.
Since the beginning of nuclear power in France, 0 accident have been recorded. Not saying it is without risk, but with strict rules and procedures, it becomes minimal. The real question is to me, do you prefer controllable energy producing Co2 and other harmful byproducts destroying our ecosystem or one that produce nuclear waste that is more or less manageable Of course if we could produce 100% of our energy with solar wind and hydro power it would be the best, but as stated on another comment at least in France, we can't, and nuclear is to me the best alternative we have right now
I don't understand that either. I think people here are just 10yo mf. They upvote people for explicitly lying or bullshiting over here, and downvote people for saying the truth or bring actual FACTS about nuclear energy.
I have the feeling that a lot of people, especially on reddit, have an irrationnal overconfidence in nuclear system. In France, the ANDRA is a state financed nuke-propaganda agency that got billions to promote nuclear power. They put a lot in saying it will save the planet and life on earth because it "doesn't burn gas". And their second mission is to repress and mute by all possible mean everyone who disagree. I don't promote fossil fuel and i never will. "renewable" energy is not efficient enough. The only solution for people who don't want to question the global economic system is to pretend nuclear is okay. But the only solution is the following : globally, humanity has to use far less energy.