[icy_deadposts]

Here's a harsh reality: "zero co2" nuclear emits massive amounts of CO2 during mining, during enrichment, creation of fuels, the massive motorcades that transport the fuels to their final power plant destination where they finally produce power without emitting CO2. So maybe its better for local air quality, but really the emissions are quite high.

The actual metric that reflects the total embodied energy, which is a much better proxy for CO2 intensivity, is Levelized Cost of Energy, and nuclear is typically one of the worst.

Not only does the high cost of nuclear reflect all the embedded energy, that high cost is taking money away that could be used for other energy saving and therefore CO2 reducing activities, like better insulation, upgrading equipment, smart grid, etc.

Also, lets look at the posts that are "minused" without explanation. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38300495

[himinlomax]

> Here's a harsh reality: "zero co2" nuclear emits massive amounts of CO2 during mining, during enrichment, creation of fuels, the massive motorcades that transport the fuels to their final power plant destination where they finally produce power without emitting CO2. So maybe its better for local air quality, but really the emissions are quite high.

That's complete bollocks, because all those CO₂ emissions are proportional to the amount of fuel, and the power density of nuclear fuel is such that the total amount is indeed tiny.

Solar panels and wind turbines also require emitting CO₂ for their manufacture, and it turns out that they emit more than nuclear, fuel included.

Additionally, while enrichment requires a lot of energy, to spin turbines or fuel gas separation, it's electrical energy, and in France for instance it's nuclear energy fueling enrichment.

[icy_deadposts]

> Solar panels and wind turbines also require emitting CO₂ for their manufacture, and it turns out that they emit more than nuclear, fuel included.

You traced every aspect of the supply chain of both technologies to come to this conclusion?

> in France for instance it's nuclear energy fueling enrichment.

And tell me, where are the uranium mines in france?

[himinlomax]

> And tell me, where are the uranium mines in france?

There are known uranium reserves in France, they're not mined currently because the ore is dirt cheap and much more easily mined in Australia/Kazakhstan/Canada etc ...

The amount of ore is very small, and the environmental impact is also much less compared to that of mining rare earth minerals that so-called renewables need so much of.

[icy_deadposts]

Thought we're talking about fuel for operation of a power plant. How much mining and transportation does it take to get sunlight to reach a panel? Or wind to reach a turbine blade?

If you want to discuss the capital expense of nuclear, its not too great either, really most countries can't even afford a nuclear power program, where even the poorest can utilize solar panels.

[lm28469]

> And tell me, where are the uranium mines in france?

And tell me, where are the

rare earth mines...

lithium mines...

solar panel factories...

windmills factories...

in France ?

Ah right, same as uranium mines, abroad, the only difference is one require much less transport and processing to get much more energy

[hef19898]

Yes, solar panels from Asia fare pretty well whem measured like that, you are absolutely right.