Green Energy

Personally, as it currently stands, no. But it could potentially be, given better waste treatment practices and far better regulation and consistently enforced safety requirements.

It's far greener than fossil fuels, when run carefully at least. But between the persistent issues with waste reclamation and harmful leakage, and the massive amount of damage that can be done when mistakes are made or safety is overlooked, I don't think it qualifies as "green".

So from a practical standpoint, I still think new resources are better spent developing infrastructure for solar, wind, geothermal, etc. But as we are phasing out other power sources, pretty much everything else should go before we start to decommission nuclear.

I have an unpopular opinion.

TLDR: While current nucler has it's place, it most definitely is not the solution.

Please, do remember - we need solution for the whole planet, not only EU+US.

While nuclear (fision) can be relatively clean (molten salt thorium reactors), cutrent technology is not there yet, and other comments explain why: availability of uranium, processing of it, and storage of nuclear waste, which contrary to popular opinion is not yet solved. Just search around and those idea we were sold during 80s never materialized, we still don't know how to safely put nuclear waste into the ground.

Even if we do it right, it is extremely expensive and probably is generating more emissions we think.

Current technology was created for making nuclear weapons, promoting use of it is just promoting nuclear weapons.

Do you really want random countries around the world to have acces to processed uranuim?

Would you trust some random dictators that their plants will be safe?

That their nuclear waste will be safely stored?

Current nuclear is not the solution, Thorium and even better fusion is, so we need to push research, not uranium.

And we need to remember that there is no one solution to rule them all, hydro is working nicely for some countries, geothermal for others, wind for some locations, solar definitely has it's place. Nuclear too, at least to fill the gaps in others.

Other big part of solution, which every nuclear supporter is ignoring: we need to reduce energy consumption.

We need better insulation, more efficient cars, machines, computers. Less traveling, less commuting, more public transportation.

I see nuclear as a transitory source of energy. It doesn't emit any greenhouse gases and FAR better than fossil fuels. We could easily transition to it faster and more cheaply than solar, wind, etc currently. Deaths associated with fossil fuel energy greatly exceed those associate with nuclear energy.

Burning fossil fuels needs to stop and we need to bring down carbon levels to what they were 20+ years ago. Ideally, transitioning to nuclear would be cheap/fast while we build out solar and wind infrastructure, and research how to make these sources of energy more effective.

However, I'm not a policy nor energy expert by any means. I'm just some random person on the internet.