Great that the alternative is renewables then. Arguing against fossil fuels is a strawman. You also have to consider what you need to get that 1kg of U-235 and

Great that the alternative is renewables then. Arguing against fossil fuels is a strawman. You also have to consider what you need to get that 1kg of U-235 and building your huge power plant. This is called doing a life-cycle analysis. In that it has been shown the wind power is by far the cheapest in terms of material use, and solar and nuclear is about equal. > The TMR (total material requirement) of nuclear power generation is significantly lower than that of thermal power generation and is similar to that of renewables. On the basis of the low greenhouse gas emissions associated with nuclear power generation, like renewables, it can be considered favorable not only from the global warming perspective but also from a resource use perspective. "Life cycle resource use of nuclear power generation considering total material requirement" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965262202131X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965262...