Nuclear energy
Dr Michael Edesess’s article is part of the standard pro-nuclear argument that claims that the anti-nuclear case is “conventional” ignorance and is allegedly based on “irrational” fears of ionising radiation.
To the contrary, the case against nuclear energy is based on expert knowledge and is manifold. In a nutshell, nuclear energy is too dangerous, too slow to build to be useful for climate mitigation, too expensive, and too inflexible in operation to be a good partner for wind and solar.
The “too dangerous” point has three components: the contribution of nuclear energy to the proliferation of nuclear weapons; nuclear accidents; and nuclear wastes.
My more detailed critiques of nuclear energy, published by P&I, were ignored by Dr Edesess.
Contributions to Pearls and Irritations
Your contribution will fund quality independent comment and analysis in Pearls and Irritations
Contribute
