Nuclear Power More Popular

In the developed world? Very likely no big difference. Maybe a few percentage points off the price of nartural gas and a minimal uptick in cancer. You could always have a big accident, but the probabilities are low enough a few hundred more reactors don't make a big difference.

Throughout the world? We'd likely see several no-go zones where reactors used to be and people dying from exposure to radiactive nastiness. 'Dirty bombs' could also become popular with warlords as weapons of mass extortion. Nuclear power requires a stable, well-funded support infrastructure run by trained professionals, and much of the world can't provide that.
 
Reductions in cancer - nukes produce a lot less radiation than conventional coal power stations.

Probably a lot cheaper power - the excessive costs of decomissioning a nuke are mainly due to the grovelling to the eco-terrorists over every possible little thing - it could be halved with no noticeable safety issue.

No incredibly expensive and wasteful windmills.
 
Depends on the types of reactors and how they are operated. Pebble beds are passively safe making them agreeable in situations where their isn't a carrier's worth of nuclear professionals around. Fast Breeders can basically solve the nuclear waste problem by turning it into fuel. But to get to the technical and economic point where nuclear power is widespread (IE a near total replacement for coal/oil/gas) you need to dump massive amounts of money into R&D and into developing a class of people who will treat The Rules as gospel and the safe operating of the reactors as a holy charge . Ok... maybe thats overstating things a bit but you want a program like the US Navy with Rickover at the helm. Anyway if you can build enough big reactors or a lot of neighborhood sized ones you can solve most of the developed world's energy problems. With cheap electricity there may be more willingness to study plug in cars particularly if a rise in fossil fuel prices was the cause of the initial nuclear research. Also the lack of conventional plants pumping toxic soot into the atmosphere is likely to have a positive environmental and health impact. Undeveloped parts of the world are more problematic. Even with passively safe reactors someone needs to keep an eye on and maintain them and I doubt a country like Mexico much less one like Haiti is going to have the money, stability and political will to create a class of competent nuclear engineers when the USSR was hard pressed to do it. That said if you can somehow get them to operate them safely you have power. And if you have power you have water from desalinization and treatment plants, you have pumps to get it around to drink or irrigate with, you have power for factories, vehicles, lights, and those most important of things tv and computers ;).

Short version : Do it right and the world gets alot better , Dont and you irradiate large chunks of the planet.
 
Last edited:
^ As said before, it largely depends on the type of reactor.

CANDUs, which were first built in the 1950s, are among the best, along with Pebble beds. Both are meltdown proof. Terrorists are not really a concern, because even well-funded groups like Al-Queda cannot figure out to do anything with waste material and even if they did get their hands on it the waste would be so hot it would kill all involved before they could do much with it.

Doing nuclear reactors right is as pointed out important. But most nations who have nukes handle it alright. It requires investment and a lot of it, and would require a very large number of highly trained, intelligent personnel. In the Western World this can be done, in the third world not a chance.
 
Top