Technically not, but on the other hand you'd get massive amounts of energy for a very low amount of fuel. The fuel still needs to be mined tho and that mining plus the concrete structures is the only environmentally harmful aspect with nuclear power.
The exception would be to have socialists operate it, like we saw with Chernobyl. Or using nuclear power in areas prone to have regular earthquakes, like the Japanese do.
Europe is a very stable continent with a low amount of natural disasters or extreme weather which makes it perfect for nuclear power. But ironically the politicians want to "go green" and replace it all with wind energy, which is a total shame because Europe still has enough stored uranium to power the whole continent with nuclear power for at least 200 years ahead.
There are newer reactor designs that are much safer - they passively cool themselves so they don't have melt downs like Chernobyl or Fukushima if the active control systems fail. The just slowly cool off.
I won't go so far as to say the newer reactor designs are "foolproof" because fools are damned ingenious. But they are much, much safer. And nuclear power plants are not dependent on the weather to operate.
To be fair, Chernobyl was in fact worst case scenario, not only did the situation escalate but because of Soviet socialism they didn't bother to do much about it until plants over in western Europe reported high doses of radiation in the air and it was obvious what was going on.
Passive cooling as safety measure seems like a great way to avoid meltdowns, Europe also doesn't have flood waves or earthquakes so it shouldn't be possible to repeat the Fukushima incident either.
There's no reason to not build more nuclear power in Europe.
Technically not, but on the other hand you'd get massive amounts of energy for a very low amount of fuel. The fuel still needs to be mined tho and that mining plus the concrete structures is the only environmentally harmful aspect with nuclear power.
The exception would be to have socialists operate it, like we saw with Chernobyl. Or using nuclear power in areas prone to have regular earthquakes, like the Japanese do.
Europe is a very stable continent with a low amount of natural disasters or extreme weather which makes it perfect for nuclear power. But ironically the politicians want to "go green" and replace it all with wind energy, which is a total shame because Europe still has enough stored uranium to power the whole continent with nuclear power for at least 200 years ahead.
There are newer reactor designs that are much safer - they passively cool themselves so they don't have melt downs like Chernobyl or Fukushima if the active control systems fail. The just slowly cool off.
I won't go so far as to say the newer reactor designs are "foolproof" because fools are damned ingenious. But they are much, much safer. And nuclear power plants are not dependent on the weather to operate.
To be fair, Chernobyl was in fact worst case scenario, not only did the situation escalate but because of Soviet socialism they didn't bother to do much about it until plants over in western Europe reported high doses of radiation in the air and it was obvious what was going on.
Passive cooling as safety measure seems like a great way to avoid meltdowns, Europe also doesn't have flood waves or earthquakes so it shouldn't be possible to repeat the Fukushima incident either.
There's no reason to not build more nuclear power in Europe.
Or in most of the US.
this. technology has advanced a lot since chernobyl.
and there are advances in nuclear fusion as well, not just fission.
the only problem with nuclear is you cant virtue signal and get elected and get your buddies rich with it.