Not so clean either.Precisely because more concrete is used than with conventional power plants. Concrete is unfortunately a large CO2 producer (until it is dried). This disadvantage also includes other forms: gas, oil, coal, tidal, windmills, Flow, ion exchange (freshwater/saltwater), waves, PV, concentrated sunlight (liquid salt) plants. They all cause CO2 during construction and disturb nature.
The uranium must be mined, purified and concentrated, just like the fossil fuels.The other forms of power plants are not affected.
The main problem is the building after completion and the finished fuel, apart from the huge amount of light radioactively become stuff and clothing, all of which need to be stored.
Since Pons and Fleischmann have announced their observation 20 years ago, they also searched for Cold fusion (LENR), even by reputable institutions in the US and Japan.Just because this is small scale, with local revival this would be great. So far, very little has come out of it.
Then you have the great Hot Fusion projects in France and Germany.This seems to be ready for 50 years, over 30 years…
All central generation has disadvantages and gives power in the hands of the energy companies/distribution companies.Local generation with storage (e.g. In batteries, pressure, hydrogen production, etc) and the use of the solar heat itself (possibly with heat pump) makes the plants largely redundant (mainly industry).
In other words.Rather more local revival than central generation (in whatever form), but certainly not shifting the problem to the future with more CO2 or mountains to radioactive waste.
The reputation of nuclear energy is determined by the visibility of the consequences.Not by the quantity.
Nuclear energy has two major problems compared to fossil energy: (1) If something firmly goes wrong in the plant then it provides a huge local accident that costs a great deal and persists for centuries and (2) if the reactor is 芒 鈧?艙ready芒 鈧?with the fissile material Then it remains very dangerous for a long time by radioactivity (much more than the original uranium ore!).
With fossil energy, the danger is a lot less visible: (1) The combustion gases contain a lot of carbon dioxide, but also many other directly hazardous substances.The resulting smog is likely to kill hundreds of thousands of people annually, but who is never to pinpoint exactly. (2) in coal mines and coal combustion, radioactive substances are also released, which are simply divided into the environment and not concentrated. Unfortunately, with radioactivity you can keep it together better: you can protect against it.
This equation is very similar to the risk 芒 鈧劉 s of flying and car driving: The aircraft accidents are getting the newspaper worldwide, but there are daily airloads to people in traffic worldwide.
See also: the accident
Risk is defined as a chance to effect.
The k脙 隆 ns that something goes wrong with a nuclear installation is not so h脙 漏 脙 漏 L Great, however, the effect is immediately gigantic.See Chernobyl, Fukushima and to a lesser extent Sellafield.
For that reason it has a bad name.However, if there is good management and good maintenance then there is no reason for me to avoid it.