Cons
High construction costs due to complex radiation containment systems
and procedures.
* High subsidies needed for construction and operation, as well as loan
guarantees.
* Subsidies and investment could be spent on other solutions (such as
renewable energy systems).
* High-known risks in an accident.
* Unknown risks.
* Long construction time.
* Target for terrorism (as are all centralized power generation sources).
* Waivers are required to limit liability of companies in the event of an
accident. (This means that either no one will be responsible for physical,
environmental, or health damages in the case of an accident or leakage
over time from waste storage, or that the government will ultimately have
to cover the cost of any damages.)
* Nuclear is a centralized power source requiring large infrastructure,
investment, and coordination where decentralized sources (including solar
and wind) can be more efficient, less costly, and more resilient.
* Uranium sources are just as finite as other fuel sources, such as coal,
natural gas, etc., and are expensive to mine, refine, and transport, and
produce considerable environmental waste (including greenhouse gasses)
during all of these processes.
* The majority of known uranium around the world lies under land
controlled by tribes or indigenous peoples who don’t support it being mined
from the earth.
* The legacy of environmental contamination and health costs for miners
and mines has been catastrophic.
* Waste lasts 200 – 500 thousand years.
* There are no operating long-term waste storage sites in the U.S. One
is in development, but its capacity is already oversubscribed. Yucca
Mountain is in danger of contaminating ground water to a large water
basin, affecting millions of people. It’s difficult, if not impossible, for the
U.S. to impose its will on the state of Nevada (or other places) if they don’t
want to host long-term storage of waste.
* There are no operating “next generation” reactors, such as high-
temperature breeder reactors and particle-beam activated reactors, that
are reported to produce less waste and have reduced safety concerns.
Even if these technologies were ready, they wouldn’t be deployable
commercially for another two decades.
* Shipping nuclear waste internationally poses an increased potential
threat to interception to terrorism (though this has not happened yet with
any of the waste shipped by other countries). Increasing the amount of
waste shipped, particularly in less secure countries, is seen as a significant
increase in risk to nuclear terrorism.
For more information please follow this link:
http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/02/nuclear-energy-pros-and-cons/
and procedures.
* High subsidies needed for construction and operation, as well as loan
guarantees.
* Subsidies and investment could be spent on other solutions (such as
renewable energy systems).
* High-known risks in an accident.
* Unknown risks.
* Long construction time.
* Target for terrorism (as are all centralized power generation sources).
* Waivers are required to limit liability of companies in the event of an
accident. (This means that either no one will be responsible for physical,
environmental, or health damages in the case of an accident or leakage
over time from waste storage, or that the government will ultimately have
to cover the cost of any damages.)
* Nuclear is a centralized power source requiring large infrastructure,
investment, and coordination where decentralized sources (including solar
and wind) can be more efficient, less costly, and more resilient.
* Uranium sources are just as finite as other fuel sources, such as coal,
natural gas, etc., and are expensive to mine, refine, and transport, and
produce considerable environmental waste (including greenhouse gasses)
during all of these processes.
* The majority of known uranium around the world lies under land
controlled by tribes or indigenous peoples who don’t support it being mined
from the earth.
* The legacy of environmental contamination and health costs for miners
and mines has been catastrophic.
* Waste lasts 200 – 500 thousand years.
* There are no operating long-term waste storage sites in the U.S. One
is in development, but its capacity is already oversubscribed. Yucca
Mountain is in danger of contaminating ground water to a large water
basin, affecting millions of people. It’s difficult, if not impossible, for the
U.S. to impose its will on the state of Nevada (or other places) if they don’t
want to host long-term storage of waste.
* There are no operating “next generation” reactors, such as high-
temperature breeder reactors and particle-beam activated reactors, that
are reported to produce less waste and have reduced safety concerns.
Even if these technologies were ready, they wouldn’t be deployable
commercially for another two decades.
* Shipping nuclear waste internationally poses an increased potential
threat to interception to terrorism (though this has not happened yet with
any of the waste shipped by other countries). Increasing the amount of
waste shipped, particularly in less secure countries, is seen as a significant
increase in risk to nuclear terrorism.
For more information please follow this link:
http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/02/nuclear-energy-pros-and-cons/
