Zelo razumen članek v The Guardianu, ki poudarja, da je jedrska energija edina resna opcija, če želimo zagotoviti domači razvoj in omogočiti državam v razvoju, da zrastejo iz revščine. Vsi ostali viri so bodisi “umazani” (elektrarne na premog ali plin), nezadostni (hidro elektrarne) ali nezanesljivi in dragi (OVE sonca in vetra). Jedrska energija je najcenejši nizkoogljični vir elektrike.

Today, 700 million people live in extreme poverty (defined as living on less than $2.15 per day). They won’t climb out of it without access to more energy. Making as much energy as possible available to as many people as possible ought to be a defining goal of the 21st century.

But there is an elephant in the room: the climate emergency. Our energy supply is responsible for three-quarters of our global greenhouse gas emissions. Plot a second graph, this time of carbon emissions per capita against energy consumption per capita: you’ll draw another straight line. So, how do we promote energy abundance and the prosperity it enables without sacrificing the natural environment?

…

Denying the developing world access to abundant energy would be a profound moral failure, not to mention an act of breathtaking hypocrisy. The answer is not less energy, but cleaner energy, and more of it.

Wind and solar power are often offered as the solutions. But their power is intermittent, energy industry jargon for “unreliable”. They’re fundamentally constrained by meteorology and celestial mechanics: wind turbines falter on still days, and solar panels don’t work on the side of the Earth facing away from the sun (colloquially called “night-time”). I would love to live in a world where wind and solar alone could replace fossil fuels, but there’s no beating the laws of physics.

Elaborate backup systems won’t cut it, either. Pumped-storage hydroelectricity – which represents 95% of the world’s electricity backup capacity – and batteries discharge in minutes and hours. Yet wind and solar falter for days and weeks at a time. To replace fossil fuels and support renewables, we need something that’s always on, potent and, crucially, emissions-free.

Nuclear reactors meet these ideals. They’re dispatchable, industry parlance for reliable. A single one generates enough electricity to power the lives of 2 million average Europeans, even after accounting for downtime and maintenance. And they don’t emit carbon dioxide. “But doesn’t nuclear take too long to build?!” Not necessarily. Between 1973 and 1999 France built 56 nuclear reactors with a median construction time of just six years, cutting the fossil fuel share of electricity in its grid from 65% to less than 10%. (Incidentally, France’s GDP per capita rose by 58% over the same period.)

“But doesn’t nuclear take too long to build?!” Not necessarily. Between 1973 and 1999 France built 56 nuclear reactors with a median construction time of just six years, cutting the fossil fuel share of electricity in its grid from 65% to less than 10%. (Incidentally, France’s GDP per capita rose by 58% over the same period.)

There’s also a perception that nuclear power is dangerous, yet the data show it’s as safe as wind and solar. People believe that it’s expensive, yet the International Energy Agency finds it to be “the least cost option for low-carbon generation”. Perhaps it’s bad for the environment? Well, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe concludes it has the lightest ecological burden of any power source. And how on earth do you solve the problem of nuclear waste? Finland – with a grid that’s 40% nuclear – has a working geological storage solution.

In fact, nuclear power’s biggest obstacle is its terrible PR. It’s the bogeyman of the energy world, but like all bogeymen, the reality is rather different. It’s a tragedy that we’ve been splitting atoms in nuclear power stations for longer than we’ve known we were causing the climate to change.

Vir: Tim Gregory, The Guardian