4 ms·
For nuclear to be viable globally, which is necessary to solve climate change, it would mean trusting other, far less developed and unstable countries to build
by cameronh90 4y ago
For nuclear to be viable globally, which is necessary to solve climate change, it would mean trusting other, far less developed and unstable countries to build and operate nuclear power plants. That is something that even the US, the USSR and Japan have all occasionally failed to do correctly with significant consequences. The UK has a ton of hot nuclear waste that is still improperly stored due political issues. I don't think there's political appetite for expanding the set of countries with access to fission.
Solar, wind, geothermal, biofuels etc. are imperfect, but it's hard to imagine a scenario where a mistake can make a significant chunk of the earth uninhabitable for hundreds of years.
- aylons 4y agoBrazil, Argentina, India, South Africa and Mexico have been operating nuclear power plants for decades, with no major events. They are fewer than the US, USSR and Japan, but they are very capable of operating advanced technology. Advanced technology, specially the most recent and in this case, safer, is held from these countries for reasons has little to do with fear of a significant chunk being uninhabitable for hundreds of years. Quite on the contrary, if fear of a big chunk of the countries being uninhabitable had anything to do in this matter, rich nations would be financing nuclear power plants to the poor to prevent sea level rise.