This is why we look at the actual amount of carbon released, not just a binary yes/no. I mean even if you had a magic power source that did not emit one single molecule of C02, a FUD spreader like you could use that exact same argument the first time a worker sparks a cigarette.
So tell me, how much C02 does mining uranium emit as compared to a coal station on a kg/Watt basis? six orders of magnitude less? seven?
No, I don't need to. I refuted a claim. You can move the goal posts, but I won't participate in that game.
Obviously a coal plant emits more CO2 than a nuclear fission plant. But the criticized sentence contained the words "carbon free". Which is just not true. I don't see how pointing that out is FUD.
I think if the original poster had mentioned in a balanced way and as kind of a footnote that, sure nuclear isn’t 100% carbon free but has some emissions, then people wouldn’t have reacted so harshly.
As it stands, the poster said that this (a bit exaggerated) claim somehow negates anything else there and that’s just wrong.
For practical purposes, nuclear power is as green as it gets so attacking it in this way is rather cheeky.
So tell me, how much C02 does mining uranium emit as compared to a coal station on a kg/Watt basis? six orders of magnitude less? seven?