Basically the article you point to is a great piece of negative propaganda but isn't a reliable source for the accurate cost
of nuclear energy production.
While nuclear proponents use the green house gas debate to promote nuclear energy,
nuclear energy production does entail emissions, very toxic emissions at that.
Consider a country with a large proportion
of nuclear energy production (say 50 %)-- and consider a similar one that is solely reliant on fossil fuel energy.
Switzerland has interim storage of waste
from nuclear energy production at Zwilag, with sufficient capacity for the expected lives of the current operating fleet; however disposal options still need to be defined and the government must continue to develop solutions.
The long - term hazard of radioactive wastes arising
from nuclear energy production is a matter of continued discussion and public concern in many countries.
, are also still hoping to cobble together compromise environmental legislation that would require emissions reductions, but also
expand nuclear energy production and allow limited offshore drilling.
Since 2012, as the traditional leaders
in nuclear energy production have remained stagnant or backed off of their reliance on nuclear in the wake of Fukushima, China has added 11 new reactors and over 11 gigawatts of nuclear generating capacity.
For the first part of your question only (national security threat), from an author I don't fully agree with on Uranium and Russia (he thinks the sanctions on Russia are really about natural gas and he thinks the sanctions are foolish)- he proves that Russia is a large producer of Uranium while the US is seeing a decline in production and imports quite a bit of Uranium
for nuclear energy production (sourced from the EIA).
He stressed the need for developed countries to help India increase
its nuclear energy production capacity by making nuclear fuels readily available.
Eric Kvaalen points out that
nuclear energy production isn't green because no way has been found to deal with the...
And, his choice to highlight solar energy generation in particular, especially in a state that relies on similarly - thirsty fossil and
nuclear energy production, strikes me as a little disingenuous.
While nuclear energy is regarded as the lesser of the two evils when compared at an emission level to the burning of fossil - fuels, it may trump on the containment of the heat process, which burns in a contained nuclear reactor through an in - ward heat - chemical reaction called fission, but
nuclear energy production is a chain from uranium mining to the toxic waste disposal and therefore as an entire process is an equally high risk environmental option.
Nuclear technicians assist physicists, engineers, and other professionals in nuclear research and
nuclear energy production.