What a weird comparison. Nobody is saying we should drill oil and gas instead of wind turbines.
Then there is Chernobyl which now has healthier and more diverse wildlife than much of the world because humans have evacuated.
In the macro, it created a nature preserve that humans will barely visit, won't hunt in, won't deforest; and requires no active enforcement to keep that way.
-Many more people become atomic experts, and they may be hired by weapons programs in the future.
-We will learn how to deal with nuclear materials more efficiently - good for energy, but maybe also good for building weapons.
-With more nuclear material being manufactured for energy, will it be easier to hide weapons manufacturing in the mix?
I'd like to acknowledge that I'm speaking from ignorance here. I don't know much about nuclear technology.
The barriers are more geopolitical than anything.
Though I'm a bit wary of nuclear given there are studies indicating that the heat energy added by thermal power plants contributes surprisingly much to global warming. If we can replace all thermal power plants with renewables that's a nice contribution to reducing global warming. On the order of CO2 emissions from planes if I remember correctly.
I'm sure we could "afford" the heat from thermal power plants if we didn't have so many greenhouse gases. But when we're already so close to the edge of the cliff, every little bit counts.
The temperature is a balance between energy incoming from the sun and energy being radiated off into space. Wind and solar don't change that balance directly, although the lower reflectivity of solar panels makes a small local difference. Ultimately it's the transmissibility spectrum of the atmosphere that matters. Which is why we care about CO2 in the first place.
Perhaps you were working with people who don't feel the need to talk about how great nuclear is all the time because you all work in the industry and understand that already.
Essentially everyone has forgotten the arguments of the nineties: nuclear weapons proliferation, waste dumping, and covering the entirety of western Europe in a thin layer of airborne radioactive particles. As well as the more practical cost overruns. Personally I think it would be worth someone giving SMR a go, but in a different country from me and at their own expense.
Also, this is why people are reluctant to let some of the world's larger carbon emitters, the oil states in the middle east, build nuclear reactors. Iran has a small, heavily monitored fleet.
The enthusiasm is largely for newer nuclear designs that address the FUD that gets thrown around whenever nuclear is mentioned.
It's the same conclusion as hydrogen car investment. It's easy to maintain ice technology, but the generation, storage, trabsport, use are riddled with issues.
That, cannot be tolerated. They're free to move to industrial zoned land if they want to be a power plant.
(Neither the ag-backwoods voters controlling their zoning nor capitalists installing them are hyper concerned about sparrows getting chopped up. It's a ruse.)
Why, exactly?
https://theintercept.com/2021/12/08/oil-industry-wind-farm-p...
> The plan, which was approved in 2017, sanctioned a Danish company to build a 120-megawatt capacity wind energy project — enough to power 40,000 homes by placing turbines 26 nautical miles offshore. The letter warned that the project would “irreparably damage beach tourism, home values and the economy,” “lower rents generally,” and produce “no environmental benefit.” “In fact,” the letter claimed, “regional air quality would become worse because of them.”
> While the letter was signed by a local resident, it made little mention of its true author: the Caesar Rodney Institute, a libertarian think tank at the time funded by the oil industry. The subterfuge was intentional. In an interview with the State Policy Network, a group that coordinates best practices for oil-and-gas-backed and libertarian think tanks, the Caesar Rodney Institute said it produced the letter and had it signed by a local concerned beach homeowner to “establish rapport” with the target audience of local residents and merchants.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_sta... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wind_farms_in_Canada
https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/canadas-oil-rich-alberta-...
The people who are concerned about wind turbines killing birds aren't offering any alternatives, that would be widely accepted, so the result is fossil fuel, because that's what we already have in place.
The anti-nuclear protests in the 60s and 70s also didn't want fossil fuels, but they also didn't understand that an increase in fossil fuel usage was the alternative, because it was the only one that made financial sense.
Former President Trump has repeatedly stated that wind turbines are terrible for birds. I'm no mind reader, but it is also a fact that he owns a coastal golf course and sued to prevent development of a wind farm because he didn't want his golfers experience to be affected by seeing offshore wind turbines.
2016: https://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/trumps-hot-air-on-wind-ene... 2018: https://www.factcheck.org/2018/09/trump-again-overblows-risk... 2019: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/23/trump-bizarr... 2020: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-wind-energy-kills-... 2023: https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-are-thousands-bald-eagle...
I'm sure if I looked beyond the first page of search results, I could fill in the other years.
Some information about the lawsuit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_International_Golf_Club_...
Current law is so harsh that you can build a coal powerplant closer to peoples' houses than a wind turbine :)
That's despite the fact we have the worst air pollution in EU and the wind turbines would replace coal powerplants...
TL; DR: you're wrong.