[qlte]

Sure, I don't disagree with the ideal of onshoring more manufacturing for solar, but then the same standard should be applied to the entire supply chain of all forms of power generation. Frequently those negative externalities seem to be most often raised as a "gotcha" for solar specifically, in an attempt to rebut the clear environmental advantages.

For example, nuclear power is often sold as a plant that just sits there churning out zero-emissions power for 50 years from a few tons of super energy dense fuel (such as from the above commenter). Without acknowledging that fuel needs to be enriched from intensive and environmentally destructive mining of raw uranium ore. Which comes with risks to workers and possible contamination of groundwater to nearby communities, etc. Or the carbon impacts of the massive amounts of concrete/steel/etc that are required to build the plant, or the opportunity costs of spending tens of billions on a plant that will require continuing to burn natural gas and coal for another 10-20+ years until it comes online as a replacement, etc.

Otherwise it's just special pleading to apply a different standard that exaggerates the negative externalities of solar + batteries.

[leonidasrup]

Because of super energy density of uranium you need to mine only small amounts of ore, per GWh. Uranium enriched is currently done by gas centrifuges, geopolitically sensitive technology. In future it could be done by laser isotope separation, much more efficient technology, but also geopolitically much more sensitive technology. (Exactly because laser isotope separation doesn't require large amounts of energy and space, it could be easier hidden). There have been demonstrated fast neutron reactors that can run on natural uranium without enrichment, can burn plutonium, but for geopolitical reason this programs have been stopped in US and US discouraged other governments from developing this technologies. With fast neutron reactors we already have enough uranium in stockpiles to power world for centuries.

Carter administration - Fast reactors and nuclear nonproliferation problem

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S245230381...

The biggest CO2 impact of nuclear energy is from the steel/concrete used to build the containment building. Because of the aircraft impact rules, nuclear containment building has to survive the impact of a fully loaded large aircraft. These buildings are the strongest non-military facilities in existence, no other civilian industrial plants (even chemical plants with very nasty stuff) have this level of protection. Personally, I think much steel/concrete could be saved by moving nuclear reactor deep underground, but this would require changes in regulation. Again, deep underground nuclear facilities, geopolitical questions...