Is nuclear power our best bet against climate change?
According to the EPA [1], electricity accounts for 25% of greenhouse gas emissions. While that's significant, replacing all fossil fuel usage for power production is significant.The standard concerns apply: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 -> UF4) and are, to date, expensive;2. We have no long term solution on the storage and disposal of fission waste products;3. The failure modes are huge. Most notably, the Cheernobyl Absolute Exclusion Zone stands at 1000 square miles 35 years after the fact; and4. This it he big one for me: I just don't trust governments or corporations to maintain, inspect, manage and operate nuclear power plants at scale.> Researchers have estimated that about 1 in 5 deaths globally can be attributed to fossil fuels through air pollution aloneFrom the linked post [2]:Also worth noting:> 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, ...So it's including vehicles. You could be 100% nuclear power generation and that part wouldn'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.[1]: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...[2]: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/feb/fossil-fuel-air-pollutio...