**Pros and cons of nuclear energy** **Pros of nuclear energy** - Cleaner and somewhat more renewable than fossil fuels - a zero-emission, carbon-free energy source. - Low operating costs. - It has a high energy density. - Takes up [little land space](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-how-much-power-does-nuclear-reactor-produce) compared to other methods, significantly less compared to solar or wind farms. - As fossil fuels and traditional non-renewable resources deplete there are few options left if we continue with such high power usage. - There is sufficient uranium for 80 years, compared to [30-50](https://springpowerandgas.us/the-pros-cons-of-nuclear-energy-is-it-safe/) for oil, gas and coal. - It is considered at least a short term solution to the climate crisis. **Cons of nuclear energy** - Negative ethical and environmental impacts of mining and processing uranium & the process of mining, refining, and preparing uranium still uses energy. - Uranium is still technically non-renewable. - The 444 nuclear power plants currently in existence provide about 11% of the world’s energy. In order to meet current and future energy needs, the nuclear sector would have to scale up to around [14,500 plants](https://www.nei.org/resources/statistics). - This upscale is unfeasible due to limitations on suitable sites for nuclear plants. - Dangerous radioactive nuclear waste - in extreme cases can cause a devastating environmental and health catastrophe. - Because of this they are a potential target for terrorism. - Workers of and residents near to nuclear plants have significantly higher risks of cancer. - Very high upfront costs and require many costly safety precautions - governments must spend billions to safely dispose of nuclear waste. - Poor nations who cannot afford nuclear power may become [reliant](https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443995604578001973671148176) on rich countries to provide their energy if dependence on nuclear power increases.

**Nuclear power seems fairly crucial for achieving net zero within the time frame we need to.** - [Net zero](https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/what-is-net-zero) is not the same as zero emissions---a point of some confusion: Net zero allows for companies to make up for their emissions by balancing them out with an equal environmental greenhouse gas _reducer_, e.g., a company planting enough trees to offset the carbon dioxide they may not have the technology to avoid emitting. Zero emissions would be not emitting any of the gases in the first place. - Nevertheless, most experts agree that net zero needs to be achieved by [2050](https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050) to avert (at least some) major climate disasters. Doing so will almost certainly require the use of nuclear power. - Using renewable energy for power seems like it would only, on average, cover about half of the energy needed for powering daily life. So the rest of it, [some experts say](https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/if-were-serious-about-net-zero-nuclear-energy-ban-must-end/news-story/902ba0476b2ac13833eb6a64d5d499e5), must come from nuclear power. - Interesting news on nuclear technologies: https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Companies-outline-net-zero-actions-ahead-of-COP26