Should we invest in nuclear energy to curb climate change? | The Tylt

Dataviz
Real-time Voting
Should we invest in nuclear energy to curb climate change?
#NuclearIsTheFuture
#NuclearIsDangerous

The biggest drawback with nuclear power plants is that the process to ensure safety makes them incredibly expensive. This creates a long timeline before there's a return on investment. There are few economic incentives to switch to nuclear.

The nuclear industry is safe because every plant consumes billions of dollars in permitting, inspections, materials, and specialized construction decades before producing its first jolt of current. And those costs are exactly what keep this safe, sustainable energy source from really happening.
#NuclearIsTheFuture
The world needs a solution that can be implemented immediately to transition the energy grid away from fossil fuels. Nuclear energy could be that answer. Newer reactors are incredibly safe and build on lessons from the past. 

But Rosner argued these odds could be overcome by a public willing to pay the cost. To replace fossil fuels by 2050, the world would have to build 380 reactors per year—a staggering number but not, he said, an implausible one.

“None of these numbers are implausible,” Rosner said. “The question is whether or not people are willing to put up the money. The answer in the United States right now is no.”

#NuclearIsDangerous

Critics of nuclear energy argue that the resources spent creating nuclear energy would be better used to develop green technology. Solar, wind and geothermal all have lower carbon footprints and are easier to construct. There's also a lot more political will to push the technology forward. 

We rejected nuclear for several reasons. First, it's not carbon-free, no matter what the advocates tell you. Vast amounts of fossil fuels must be burned to mine, transport and enrich uranium and to build the nuclear plant. And all that dirty power will be released during the 10 to 19 years that it takes to plan and build a nuclear plant. (A wind farm typically takes two to five years.)
The on-the-ground footprint of nuclear power, through its plants and uranium mines, is about 1,000 times larger than it is for wind. Wind turbines are merely poles in the ground -- with lots of space between them that can be farmed, ranched or left open -- or poles in the ocean. Geothermal energy also has a much smaller footprint than nuclear; solar only slightly more. But while geothermal, solar and wind are safe, nuclear is not.
#NuclearIsTheFuture

Supporters of nuclear energy say that nuclear energy is an incredibly safe way to generate power and it does not need more innovation and research to make the difference in the fight against climate change—it's something we can do right now. 

#NuclearIsDangerous

Critics worry about the unforeseen dangers of nuclear. After all, no one expected Fukushima or Chernobyl to happen, but they did. 

FINAL RESULTS
Culture
Should we invest in nuclear energy to curb climate change?
#NuclearIsTheFuture
A festive crown for the winner
#NuclearIsDangerous