The nuclear industry often complains that their critics are incapable of division, and you sure seem to be proving them correct. In the USA, nuclear has 10x the

The nuclear industry often complains that their critics are incapable of division, and you sure seem to be proving them correct. In the USA, nuclear has 10x the install base of wind. If it were equally problematic, you should expect 10x the problems. The ratio is probably higher in France. > nuclear doesn't work without considerable amounts of fossil fuel. Ditto wind, ditto solar. They are considerably worse once you divide by the power they actually produce, as you should. With wind, you build a gigantic edifice of concrete and steel, and it powers a neighborhood, some of the time. With nuclear, you build a gigantic edifice of concrete and steel, and it powers multiple cities, all of the time. https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footprint/ https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footpr... > It would be interesting to read a full study on the requirements on fossil fuel to produce an electric car Dude, this is electric car 101 stuff. If you haven't found these studies, it's because you weren't looking.