A lot of people from around the world are saying that nuclear energy is the way to go as far fossil fuel replacements go. Despite the obvious drawback of core meltdowns like the ones we’ve seen in Fukushima, there is another reason why nuclear power is long ways away from being our savior when it comes to the looming energy crisis that we’re exepriance once there is a decrease in oil recovery and production.
Why nuclear energy won’t be our savior
Nuclear energy is a decent enough replacement for fossil fuels. There’s very little pollution, if you don’t count the radioactive waste, and it’s a relatively high density energy source.
Electricity production in France is dominated by nuclear power. They seem to be managing just fine. However there are forecasts that the world energy demands will increase up to 50% by the year 2040. That means a substantial energy production capabilities have to be built in roughly 20 years time. If you account for the fact that the average construction time and costs of nuclear power plants seem to be on the rise, it seems very unlikely that nuclear energy is the savior we’re looking for to cover those future energy demands. It will have to be a mix of energy production methods like solar, hydro, wind, geothermal, fossil, nuclear, etc. to help us get at that level of production.