Stab #2 at Determining if Nuclear is a Good Idea

My last effort at determining if nuclear power is a good idea was a quick one. I wrote:

Five things against nuclear power -- and we'll leave meltdowns out:
1.) It is expensive.
2.) It has a long construction time, and with the need to move swiftly to energy sources free of greenhouse gases, that is critical.
3.) It requires harmful uranium mining and use, the extraction, refining, and reactor processes polluting the air and water.
4.) It produces dangerous waste that must be stored or buried for years, and sometimes centuries, before becoming safe.
5.) It cuts into the development of renewable energy, as nuclear projects are pushed by proponents as a means of reducing wind and solar.

I received a lot of pushback on items 2 through 4. At this point, I believe much of the pushback was justified. But, I continue to study. I am not ready to take a definitive stance, but feel I have prolonged an update on my feelings and it is time to post something.

First, concerning meltdowns -- nuclear accidents. They draw media attention, but have not proven very harmful in the past. And new safety precautions have further reduced the chances of meltdown tragedies.

Second, it is said today's nuclear is enclosed in thick metal containers -- so thick that the could not be breached by a 9-11 type airplane attack. Missiles could not blow them open. So, it would seem they might be safe from terrorist and military attacks. But, I find Greenpeace, as recent as 2022, writing:

"Nuclear factories and plants are easy targets for malevolent acts: terrorist threats, the risk of unintentional or voluntary airliner crashes, cyberattacks or acts of war. The enclosures of plants and certain ancillary buildings containing radioactive materials are not designed to withstand this type of attack or shock."

I'm guessing Greenpeace is wrong, but don't know for sure.

Third, as President Biden announced the Ancestral Footprints Monument in Arizona, much to the happiness of the Native Americans there, those who did not like the area being designated a monument noted it will take a large reserve of uranium away, forcing us to rely on foreign (such as Russia and China) sources. I read in one place that only 1.3 percent of the nation's uranium is in the area of the Ancestral Footprints Monument, but opponents of the monument maintain that is a significant amount in terms of our needs.

But, here's the trick: I've been told uranium is recycled these days. This has been used as an argument that we do not need to do much mining, as the nuclear plants don't require much uranium. If we don't need to do much mining, why the urgency of using the reserves in the new monument?

Lastly, it appears the mining process does pose a danger. Some say it doesn't, but my understanding is that it does. Mining in the days of the Cold War has been linked with kidney disease, cancer, and more. "We know from firsthand experience the damage that can be caused by yellow dirt contaminating our water and poisoning our animals and children," said Buu Nygren, president of the Navajo Nation.

Has the mining process become cleaner? I don't know that it has.

(Index -- Climate change info)