3 ms·
So much wrong with this. Nuclear is clearly the most 'low-carbon' energy that exists, and every systematic analysis has shown it as such. I'm not gone address
by nickik 7y ago
So much wrong with this.
Nuclear is clearly the most 'low-carbon' energy that exists, and every systematic analysis has shown it as such.
I'm not gone address your bad economics.
> peak uranium
Peak uranium is nonsense. Just like peak coal and peak oil. We have unlimited amount of nuclear materials, not even U-235 is close to any peak. We have unlimited U-238 and Thorium that we could use as well.
- FAKEDETECTOR 7y agoBoth of your points are factually wrong.
- ZeroGravitas 7y agoNuclear is much less carbon intensive than fossil fuels but loses to wind and PV, no? Edit: I misread the graph, the ranges basically overlap, wind might be slightly ahead, solar behind but probably too close to call based on the numbers in that report) https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low...
- nickik 7y agoIt depends a bit, practically speaking carbon is irrelevant for all three.