Question: what is better nuclear or renewables sources ?

Daniel Mietchen answered on 17 Jun 2010:

If you only look at carbon dioxide (like many politicians tend to do), then nuclear is may be better overall (though building and running a nuclear power plant still produces a whole lot of CO2). However, there are several problems with this approach: First, the primary resource is not renewable (in the sense that the natural conditions on Earth would keep producing it). Second, radioactive waste is dangerous, and no place on our planet has yet been found where it can be stored safely. So it is definitely a no-go in the long run, and perhaps best avoided in the short run too.

It is not clear whether renewable sources of energy will be able to replace non-renewable ones before the latter are exhausted, so even though they are “better” than nuclear and/ or fossil, they may not be enough to cover the demand. Things get more complicated when you consider that solar cells, for instance, are made of loads of rather rare materials whose production is generally not very friendly to the environment.

Conclusion: The best approach to our energy problems is to reduce the demand – by avoiding the worst offenders (flights, sports cars etc.), by making everything else more energy-efficient, and by buying (and using) only the things we really need (as opposed to what commercials and traditions suggest we would need), along with a comprehensive approach to recycling.