The 7 reasons why nuclear energy is not the answer to solve climate change | Heinrich Böll Stiftung | Brussels office - European Union
eu.boell.org
New nuclear power costs about 5 times more than onshore wind power per kWh. Nuclear takes 5 to 17 years longer between planning and operation and produces on average 23 times the emissions per unit electricity generated. In addition, it creates risk and cost associated with weapons proliferation, meltdown, mining lung cancer, and waste risks. Clean, renewables avoid all such risks.

This is a (slightly older) article about Nuclear Energy and climate change. It’s a hottly debated topic in climate communities, so I thought some of you would enjoy to read it.

Another article that brings up some more points against nuclear power can be found here.

I’d be interested what you ppl think of the matter.

  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    0·
    1 year ago

    Article is wrong in the opening paragraph: “[Nuclear has] mining lung cancer, and waste risks. Clean, renewables avoid all such risks.” As well all know, There is no mining involved in the manufacturing of solar panels or wind turbines, and certainly not in batteries.

    Any anti-nuclear piece that mentions mining as a downside of nuclear power is being intentionally dishonest (Spoiler alert human activity in a non-agrarian society requires mining.)

    The next issue is the cost argument. We need to get over this idea that cost matters if our goal is environmentalism. No matter what we do, it will cost money and it will cost more money then what we are currently doing. If it didn’t cost more money, (and people weren’t currently profiting off the status quo so that they can push articles like this), we would already be doing the things described in the article. But instead we have Germany that used to meet something like 28% of it’s national energy needs with nuclear, now building coal plants and strip mining old growth forest.

    If the choice is between nuclear and coal, and you pull a Germany, you are 100% wrong. For non-germans, the choice is never between nuclear and wind/solar, it’s between Nuclear and Fossil Fuels. And nuclear will always be the greener technology and should always be preferred by environmentalists.

    • Gloomy@mander.xyzOP
      0·
      1 year ago

      I suggest you read the article, before you make a point that if addresses just a few paragraphs in.

      Uranium mining causes lung cancer in large numbers of miners because uranium mines contain natural radon gas, some of whose decay products are carcinogenic. A study of 4,000 uranium miners between 1950 and 2000 found that 405 (10 percent) died of lung cancer, a rate six times that expected based on smoking rates alone. 61 others died of mining related lung diseases. Clean, renewable energy does not have this risk because (a) it does not require the continuous mining of any material, only one-time mining to produce the energy generators; and (b) the mining does not carry the same lung cancer risk that uranium mining does.

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        0·
        1 year ago

        I absolutely read the article. However it does a sleight of hand that you either agree with or fell for. It doesn’t compare uranium mining to other mining activities, it compares uranium mining to smoking. Radon gas is a naturally occurring gas from granite, not uranium ore per se, though I’d forgive you if you thought Radon had something to do with uranium specifically, that is what the article implies. Yes Radon gas exists when you mine uranium but it also exist when you mine cobalt, coal, gold, or salt.