Q: Using Uranium as a fuel seems like a no-brainer. It is available, cheap, and naturally disintegrates energy by half-life. Nuclear reactors make electricity, produce no CO2, and should last 50-60 years with proper maintenance. Why are "climate change" countries not rushing into nuclear energy and be done with "fossil fuels"?
The questions I have are:
1. How many years does it take to pay back the cost and be nuclear profitable?
2. For me, Chernobyl was the only disaster, 3 mile bend was a scare and Japan was poor private maintenance.
3. Will the world not see this as the best alternative compared to huge wind farms, solar acres, trainloads of crude or pipelines everywhere.
4. Does 5i see the day in the near future when nuclear is the answer to the carbon imprint and pollution.
Thank you, I read 5i everyday. Rene
The questions I have are:
1. How many years does it take to pay back the cost and be nuclear profitable?
2. For me, Chernobyl was the only disaster, 3 mile bend was a scare and Japan was poor private maintenance.
3. Will the world not see this as the best alternative compared to huge wind farms, solar acres, trainloads of crude or pipelines everywhere.
4. Does 5i see the day in the near future when nuclear is the answer to the carbon imprint and pollution.
Thank you, I read 5i everyday. Rene