OilPrice: Is nuclear waste more dangerous than climate change?

In the context of global climate change and against the backdrop of the Glasgow summit, world experts are thinking about the prospects for nuclear energy. Scientists do not yet know for sure whether this type of fuel is "green", and whether it is worth pinning hopes on it in terms of a global energy transition.

According to the resource OilPrice, critics of nuclear power point to its high cost, dependence on government subsidies, the risk of a potential accident, and the cost of storing and maintaining nuclear waste for hundreds and thousands of years.

Proponents of the atom point to the need to develop this industry in order to rid the world of carbon emissions. For example, over the past 50 years, nuclear power has prevented approximately 74 Gt of carbon dioxide emissions that would otherwise have been generated by using fossil fuels.

The debate about which is more dangerous - nuclear waste or climate change, is currently underway in the EU. It depends on the decision of the MEPs whether nuclear energy will be included in the climatic policies The European Union and whether it will receive billions of euros in funding in the coming years.

The most ardent supporter of the use of peaceful nuclear energy is France. Paris is positioning nuclear energy as a weapon to fight climate change and a reliable fuel source that could save Europe from future energy crises. Proponents of this idea argue that the harm from nuclear waste pales in comparison with the risks of climate change. The creation of new nuclear power plants is necessary to achieve the goals set by the Paris Climate Agreement.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Kim Rum Eun Offline Kim Rum Eun
    Kim Rum Eun (Kim Rum Yn) 10 November 2021 21: 17
    Environmental pollution is one thing. Climate change is different. I have not worked very closely on this topic, but I understand that these two phenomena are very little connected, and if they are connected, then this connection is 100% not proven by anyone.
    I believe that climate changes are cyclical within 30-50 years and these changes depend on the activity of the Sun, on which all these words and other clamor of climate defenders have no effect at all.
  2. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
    Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 12 November 2021 13: 24
    Waste can be recycled and reused or disposed of, a matter of cost.
    The Sshasovites experimented twice on humans, bombing the cities of Japan in which millions live today, and nature flourishes in the Chernobyl zone, not to mention the Mururua atoll where the radioactive background today is equal to natural due to sea currents.
    In the event of a full-scale nuclear war, no state will inflict a nuclear strike on areas, and therefore huge territories will remain directly untouched, and radioactive fallout will be distributed over the planet and their concentration will not cause fatal damage to the remaining oases of life and cold snaps with glaciers have been on the planet many times. life was adapting without possessing even a thousandth part of modern knowledge.