Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
Comments
This is the principle reason why a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain will never be built but continued to be mired in controversy.
Moreover, the United States Department of Interior denied the lease to Private Fuel Storage to go ahead with an "interim" dump of commercial nuke waste because they have "no confidence" in the national deep geological repository process.
Hmmmm? A show of the OOI's "no confidence" in the NRC's "nuclear waste confidence decision?".
Onward into the fog....
Gunter