[zekrioca]

You are talking only about the operations of the nuclear, and ignoring all the high energy process required to mine and process uranium before it can be used as a fuel, and after as waste. But let’s pass this problem to the next generation, they will know what to do :)

[wortelefant]

You underetimate the energy density of nuclear power. Yes. Uranium needs to be mined - slightly more 3xpensive if you extract it from sea water or recycle the fuel - but you need just one bathtub of fuel pellets to power a plant for 2 years. Solar and wind require more mining. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

[zekrioca]

Yes, but at what cost? The sun is free. Nuclear means dependence.

[peterfirefly]

That's still essentially zero relative to the amount of energy we can get out of the uranium.

[zekrioca]

Yes, but at what cost? The sun is free. Nuclear means dependence.

[Moldoteck]

Nuclear GHG are lowest per UNECE and NREL which do account a lot of factors. Nuclear requires least amount of mining vs any alternative so this argument makes little sense. Nuclear waste can be stored in facilities like onkalo or recycled like at la Hague(now) or Superphenix(in past)

[zekrioca]

Yes, but at what cost? The sun is free. Nuclear means dependence.

[Manuel_D]

The energy density of uranium is such that the amount of energy required to mine and process uranium is trivial relative to the amount of power produced. The carbon intensity of nuclear power is lower than solar: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph240/kountz1/

[selfmodruntime]

Surely you include the rare earths needed for solar panels as well in all of your comparisons. Nuclear fuel is incredibly energy dense.

[zekrioca]

Yes, but at what cost? The sun is free. Nuclear means dependence.