Clean? Ever looked at uranium mining and nuclear fuel production? Many countries still work with Russian Rosatom (even France), which has a track record for environmental catastrophes. Btw., with Russia military attacking a nuclear power plant in the Ukraine. In Ukraine there is the constant danger of a second Tchernobyl, due to the Russian war against the Ukraine and its power plants :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Pla... .
If this thing blows up, then what happens?
> fact remains that it delivers reliable, cheap, and clean electricity
That's your opinion, it's not a fact. Don't think that your opinions are facts and thus automatically what other people say is wrong. Be honest in communication with other people, so that your opinions are just opinions. You can argument in favor of your opinions, but they remain opinions and are not facts, just because YOU believe in them.
> So I suppose you have been against the closure of German reactors, right?
I'm for closing of nuclear reactors. You ignore the other things I said: nuclear power plants work only in a political environment, where they got a state-support/owned monopoly. Who do you think insures them? Who do you think sets up the regulatory environment that the get a large part of the market, who do you think is setting up the environment for waste storage. Hint: it's the government. We have extremely costly state financed clean-up operations for nuclear waste storage. These are old reactors.
To massively reduce the world co2 production, there is currently only ONE way known: massive scaling of renewable energy. The contribution of nuclear energy is neither cheap, nor clean, nor safe. It also does not scale. Nuclear energy stagnates since decades. Remember: China is bringing new coal power plants online, each week there are new ones.
Thus the industrialized countries have the responsibility (and the opportunity) to develop and share renewable energy technology, to be able be much faster in deployment, with improving technology. It's the only cost effective way known, which also can make a sizeable contribution.
> nuclear power plants work only in a political environment, where they got a state-support/owned monopoly.
German nuclear power worked, and you decided to shut it down, you certainly didn't shut it down because it didn't work. Your arguments are self-contradictory.
Your comments are now indefensible, now you are self-contradictory, bring absurd arguments, and even deny facts.
"He added that some 90% of Niger's population has no electricity, and price exploitation means Niger today also receives too little income for its exports."
"Instead, say local and international organisations, uranium mining by foreign-dominated companies has caused environmental damage and health problems in the far north of the country."
"Niger is the world's third to fifth-ranking producer of uranium, producing over 3,000 tonnes of uranium a year. However, the UN Development Programme's 2006 Human Development Index considers Niger the poorest country in the world, where life expectancy is 45 years old, 71 percent of adults cannot read, and 60 percent of the population lives on less than $1 a day."
These things don't look good, I would say.
> > If this thing blows up, then what happens?
> Ahahaha you have to study nuclear energy more.
You have to do that. The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant is a nuclear power plant, which is in the war zone in the Ukraine. Russia is attacking for months the electricity production and distribution in the Ukraine. If the cooling of the nuclear powerplant gets destroyed, then we have a possible meltdown or other scenarios. We already have a million refugees from the Ukraine in Germany. If a nuclear powerplant in the Ukraine gets destroyed (for example because Russia decides to bomb it), then we potentially will see millions more refugees.
So much for safe energy. There are nuclear powerplants in a warzone in Europe, and this affects us all. Direct or indirectly.
We have here former uranium mines, which were exploited by and for Russia. Google for "Wismut". It costs us many billions to clean up the russian legacy.
> Its cheap and clean, its a fact.
Selective data does not make it "cheap" and "clean". It also does not make it a fact. Consumer prices are also not "facts" about the complete cost structure of nuclear power. Consumer prices are designed by energy policy. Much of the costs of nuclear power are not payed by consumers, but by tax payers (Nuclear Power Plants can't be insured, unlike solar panels -> the tax payer will pay for these events -> for example a single Earth Quake in Japan causes costs the tax payer of several hundred billion dollars -> TEPCO, the owner of several damaged powerplants lacks the money to pay for that...
Reading what you wrote makes me feel a bit sympathetic. I can clearly see your illogical and blind fear in your reasoning.
You don't care about renewable energy, despite all the data confirming that it has significant flaws as a technology.
Your only concern is that there shouldn't be nuclear energy, regardless of how much it can reduce carbon emissions or how many lives it can save. For you, nuclear energy is inherently harmful.
And honestly, I feel sorry for you. I can only imagine the fear from decades of media misinformation and collective anxiety about incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima, especially in Germany.
I care about renewable energy (for example for many years my electricity contract is from a local provider of 100% renewable energy).
Nuclear energy will save much less lives, than a rapid expansion of renewable energy, which is the only viable way to make a large impact on global CO2 emissions. I also think that Nuclear energy is inherently harmful in general, such that it best is avoided, especially given that it does not scale for the challenges ahead.
Here is a task for you: xy graph the following, on a time axis: share of nuclear powered electricity from the last 20 years and the yearly electricity production.
Then graph the yearly renewable energy installations and produced electricity over that period.
Then compare.
With a little math knowledge you can deduce that the situation to use nuclear energy for reducing CO2 worldwide is hopeless, renewable has been scaling much quicker and will accelerate even more in the current future.
The numbers you can collect are mostly facts and then you can find out for yourself which technology scales better. You would not fall victim to desinformation, if you collect reliable data and try to analyze it. There is only a little math needed.
If this thing blows up, then what happens?
> fact remains that it delivers reliable, cheap, and clean electricity
That's your opinion, it's not a fact. Don't think that your opinions are facts and thus automatically what other people say is wrong. Be honest in communication with other people, so that your opinions are just opinions. You can argument in favor of your opinions, but they remain opinions and are not facts, just because YOU believe in them.
> So I suppose you have been against the closure of German reactors, right?
I'm for closing of nuclear reactors. You ignore the other things I said: nuclear power plants work only in a political environment, where they got a state-support/owned monopoly. Who do you think insures them? Who do you think sets up the regulatory environment that the get a large part of the market, who do you think is setting up the environment for waste storage. Hint: it's the government. We have extremely costly state financed clean-up operations for nuclear waste storage. These are old reactors.
To massively reduce the world co2 production, there is currently only ONE way known: massive scaling of renewable energy. The contribution of nuclear energy is neither cheap, nor clean, nor safe. It also does not scale. Nuclear energy stagnates since decades. Remember: China is bringing new coal power plants online, each week there are new ones.
Thus the industrialized countries have the responsibility (and the opportunity) to develop and share renewable energy technology, to be able be much faster in deployment, with improving technology. It's the only cost effective way known, which also can make a sizeable contribution.