>>42540572Eh, the dangers of nuclear are severely overblown, but at this point it doesn’t really make economic sense to be making new plants anymore given the comparative cost, output, and environmental impact of modern solar, which is what the bulk of the world’s energy supply is going to have to come from in the next several decades (assuming we don’t decide to literally kill our selves with GW and have less global energy, by continuing to be mostly fossil fuel based.)
The other important point is that nuclear does inherently produce nuclear waste, (which ironically is much more of a problem due to nuclear-fear keeping it in comparatively unsecure holding pools instead of safely transporting it into the dedicated salt vaults excavated to indefinite hold them).
Realistically though, eventually when we are producing enough energy through renewables that we can spare it, we’re probably just going to have to expend energy to fission the radioactive waste into more stable and safe isotopes, effectively neutralizing it. Which means in the long view all nuclear power is going to be a long term net wash in terms of energy generated, albeit a necessary one to get to that point. (In the same way fossil fuels will be when humanity has spend renewable energy to fischer tropsch the CO2 out of the atmosphere to mitigate the climate effects, which will still be a problem long after we stop adding any additional greenhouse gases to the ones we’ve already put up there)
The main point is there isn’t really any profit in trying to increase our nuclear output above the amount produced by the plants we already invested in making.
