Is nuclear power our best bet against climate change?
According to the EPA [1], electricity accounts for 25% of greenhouse gas emissions. While that&#x27;s significant, replacing all fossil fuel usage for power production is significant.<p>The standard concerns apply:<p>1. We have no long term solution for the storage and disposal of enrichment byproducts. There is reprocessing but the results are simply less toxic (eg UF6 -&gt; UF4) and are, to date, expensive;<p>2. We have no long term solution on the storage and disposal of fission waste products;<p>3. The failure modes are huge. Most notably, the Cheernobyl Absolute Exclusion Zone stands at 1000 square miles 35 years after the fact; and<p>4. This it he big one for me: I just don&#x27;t trust governments or corporations to maintain, inspect, manage and operate nuclear power plants at scale.<p>&gt; Researchers have estimated that about 1 in 5 deaths globally can be attributed to fossil fuels through air pollution alone<p>From the linked post [2]:<p>Also worth noting:<p>&gt; The study shows that more than 8 million people around the globe die each year as a result of breathing in air containing particles from burning fuels like coal, petrol and diesel, ...<p>So it&#x27;s including vehicles. You could be 100% nuclear power generation and that part wouldn&#x27;t change. The counterpoint is electric vehicles. While these are generally a positive, they have more limited utility, higher cost (a significant issue in much of the world) and you have to factor in the externalities of the power used to charge them.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.epa.gov&#x2F;ghgemissions&#x2F;sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.epa.gov&#x2F;ghgemissions&#x2F;sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...</a><p>[2]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ucl.ac.uk&#x2F;news&#x2F;2021&#x2F;feb&#x2F;fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-1-5-deaths-worldwide" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ucl.ac.uk&#x2F;news&#x2F;2021&#x2F;feb&#x2F;fossil-fuel-air-pollutio...</a>