Some purported advantages (there are different technologies):
- Nuclear waste that remains radioactive for a few centuries instead of millennia
- 100–300 times more energy yield from the same amount of nuclear fuel
- Broader range of fuels, and even un-encapsulated raw fuels (non-pebble MSR, LFTR).
- In some reactors, the ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity, that is, a closed nuclear fuel cycle. This strengthens the argument to deem nuclear power as renewable energy.
- Improved operating safety features, such as (depending on design) avoidance of pressurized operation, automatic passive (unpowered, uncommanded) reactor shutdown, avoidance of water cooling and the associated risks of loss of water (leaks or boiling) and hydrogen generation/explosion and contamination of coolant water.
Any information filling out this picture is appreciated.
Because of course wind turbines just appear by themselves and don’t need steel, concrete, composites, and, well, turbines (with the associated material sourcing and recycling issues). And solar panels are just picked on trees and do not need any fabrication.
The overall carbon impact for the different energy sources are well known. Solar is slightly worse and nuclear and wind are even. All three are orders of magnitude better than any fossil fuel.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
But of all the realistic options left on the table ones that include some amount of nuclear baseload seem the least bad.
And because I don't like my contrarian views to be silenced, either.
What type of energy is "clean"?
All of these things are currently far more severe with photovoltaic panels and wind turbines. Per unit of energy, nuclear is far kinder to the Earth on all of these fronts.
> Anyway, keep downvoting my opinion.
If you insist.
Generation 3 and 3 "Advanced" reactors already generate significantly less waste than the Gen2 reactors that make up the majority in operation. Generation 4 reactors are in the design phase (some with proven technology, others with technology that is scientifically sound in theory but need some additional advances made) that reduce it by even larger amounts.
Even Gen2 reactors with all their faults over their lifetime are a huge net win over coal and gas fired power plants.
Producing photovoltaic panels generates tons of waste, as well, much of it quite toxic to humans and generally bad for the environment. Even building wind turbines isn't a perfectly clean task.
Our primary problem at this point is carbon emissions. Nuclear is a very viable option for significantly reducing them even at current technology levels, and with huge strides on the way.