Yeah, in the end nuclear may be safe but it also has a bunch of downsides, just like any other energy source. if Fusion ever becomes viable (30 years, anyone?) maybe that could become the source of energy everyone uses, but for now, wind, solar and other renewables are probably best.
I believe there were still a few deaths caused by radiation, and we should also take into account the large area rendered uninhabitable and the large amount of money that needed to be spent on cleanup, but you are correct in that well designed nuclear plants should not ever encounter Chernobyl level problems.
1 Like
Maybe 40 years.
That is useful.
Plant construction time and cost are probably the most important downsides. Maybe those modular nuclear reactors could be grouped together to be cheaper, or those which use pellets as fuel instead of rods, hence not requiring very expensive and bulky radiation protection.
1 Like
I was referencing the joke that Fusion is always 30 years away. It’s apparently really hard to get right, or else we’d have it already.
1 Like
Ha! I got your joke! I was just trying to turn it up to 11!
1 Like
We are near, from barely achieving the temperatures needed to produce the fussion to energetic return in the last test up to 0,8.
Edited: For those that don’t know, energy returns of 7-10 are needed to maintain a complex society.
2 Likes