You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Energy – Prevent, Solve or Manage

in Economics4 months ago

People tend to be afraid of nuclear energy because of the potential for disaster. Modern nuclear power plants are incredibly safe. With the amount of energy they produce, costs could potentially remain reasonably low.

Like coal, oil, and gas, control would be centralised. Very few countries have large reserves of uranium they could export. The generation of electricity would also be centralised because of the costs of building and running nuclear plants as well as the safety requirements. So many of the problems that I highlighted in this post would remain.

Sort:  

I don't see the problem with centralized control of nuclear as long as it is by the government. I know you said they aren't keen to do it because they support businesses, but I think it is a matter of who are voted in position.

I searched online, and it seems uranium is a cheap and abundant metal. I agree that the cost of building a plant is high, but it should pay for itself eventually from the savings of not buying as much oil and gas. Going nuclear may not solve all of the problems, but I think it is a step towards it. Reliance on gas and oil will decline, the power of those companies will dwindle, and renewables will be more effective as a supplemental power source.

The growth in the use of nuclear energy has stagnated over the past 20 years. See Our World in Data. It will be interesting to see if any countries make any major investments in the next decade.

I don't see the problem with centralized control of nuclear as long as it is by the government.

I have no trust in my own government or any other government for that matter.