|
|
|
|
|
by himinlomax
947 days ago
|
|
> 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. |
|
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?