People are scared of the extremely unlikely big bad thing, so they do something else that's statistically far more dangerous.
The problem with nuclear for a long time has been the cost. And the negative learning curve which makes nuclear more expensive with time and not less.
I’m also suspicious about this newfound enthusiasm for nuclear coming right when wind and solar have become cheaper than existing coal and new gas. Wouldn’t the fossil fuel companies absolutely love a more expensive alternative that takes a decade to be setup as opposed to cheaper alternatives that are operational within months?
Nowadays the price arguments are… complex. But for the first time people actually care enough about the environment that nuclear is no longer competing poorly with coal (except for in Germany).
The exact maths on comparing pricing is complicated, given that energy storage costs vary so much depending on the inputs (try looking up storage costs for a 100% solar/wind grid during a once in a decade lull, it’d make nuclear look great, but obviously for a slightly mixed grid and more typical conditions, storage might be reasonably priced vs nuclear).
Anyway, I’m mildly disinterested in nuclear now that it’s only a side show to renewables, but I think it’s far from being a slam dunk either way. If some country or politian is more interested in nuclear, fair play to them, I say go for it. We’re not in a comfortable position right now so any movement away from fossils is a win regardless of where we end up (within reason of course)
No doubt the debate will only be resolved once and for all once fusion turns up and actually makes fission genuinely irrelevant (even then, fission might be cheaper for quite a while).
We need to solve climate change, that means maximizing our impact each step at the time.
Which today the public subsidizes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...
If every nuclear reactor in the US simultaneously had an accident requiring the $70M paid out for Three-Mile Island, we'd be around 1.2% of the way to needing Treasury funds. Three-Mile Island's operator was responsible for cleaning it up, and they paid the entire $1B required to do so.
The latest figure for Fukushima from 2016 is looking at a $200B clean up cost.
Meaning each reactor in the US insured for ~1% of their total liability with the entire pool making up 5%.
so paying money for an ireversable increase in the background radiation level for the whole planet, and exclusion zones that will be poisinous for ever,and the literal mountains of mine waste and spent fuel, puts everything square?
right