PROS Lower carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) released into the atmosphere in power generation. Low operating costs (relatively). Known, developed technology “ready” for market. Large power-generating capacity able to meet industrial and city needs (as opposed to low-power technologies like solar that might meet only local, residential, or office needs but cannot generate power for heavy manufacturing). Existing and future nuclear waste can be reduced through waste recycling and reprocessing, similar to Japan and the EU (at added cost). CONS High construction costs due to complex radiation containment systems and procedures. High subsidies needed for construction and operation, as well as loan guarantees. Subsidies and investment could be spent on other solutions (such as renewable energy systems). High-known risks in an accident. Unknown risks. Long construction time. Target for terrorism (as are all centralized power generation sources). Waivers are required to limit liability of companies in the event of an accident. (This means that either no one will be responsible for physical, environmental, or health damages in the case of an accident or leakage over time from waste storage, or that the government will ultimately have to cover the cost of any damages.) Nuclear is a centralized power source requiring large infrastructure, investment, and coordination where decentralized sources (including solar and wind) can be more efficient, less costly, and more resilient. Uranium sources are just as finite as other fuel sources, such as coal, natural gas, etc., and are expensive to mine, refine, and transport, and produce considerable environmental waste (including greenhouse gasses) during all of these processes. The majority of known uranium around the world lies under land controlled by tribes or indigenous peoples who don’t support it being mined from the earth. The legacy of environmental contamination and health costs for miners and mines has been catastrophic. Waste lasts 200 – 500 thousand years. There are no operating long-term waste storage sites in the U.S. One is in development, but its capacity is already oversubscribed. Yucca Mountain is in danger of contaminating ground water to a large water basin, affecting millions of people. It’s difficult, if not impossible, for the U.S. to impose its will on the state of Nevada (or other places) if they don’t want to host long-term storage of waste. There are no operating “next generation” reactors, such as high-temperature breeder reactors and particle-beam activated reactors, that are reported to produce less waste and have reduced safety concerns. Even if these technologies were ready, they wouldn’t be deployable commercially for another two decades. Shipping nuclear waste internationally poses an increased potential threat to interception to terrorism (though this has not happened yet with any of the waste shipped by other countries). Increasing the amount of waste shipped, particularly in less secure countries, is seen as a significant increase in risk to nuclear terrorism.
A very very big question. When uranium, for example, fissions, or breaks up into smaller elements (Professor Lisa Meitner and Otto Hahn[Nobel]) there is a very very very large energy release. In the case of a nuclear bomb, that could be seen at Los Alamos and in Japan circa 1945, Harnessing, or trying to, that energy can generate heat which boils water which drives turbines which drive electricity generators which generate electricity. No need to burn coal/wood/oil etc, or less need to do so. When though, the fuel is "spent" the fissions have stopped happening at a "useful" level, how do you dismantle the reactor, and get rid of very very toxic substances, highly radioactive too.
