3 ms·
> It's.. complicated. Nuclear is super clean at the consumption site, but not super clean at the mining site [0]. It's almost certainly not complicated. The CO
by cubefox 3y ago
> It's.. complicated. Nuclear is super clean at the consumption site, but not super clean at the mining site [0].
It's almost certainly not complicated. The CO2 produced by mining uranium is irrelevant compared to the CO2 produced by burning coal fuel.
> And then there's the problem that France's access to cheap uranium is a relic of extractive colonialism, and these countries don't exactly see the fair profits from France's hunger for energy [1].
Uranium is not a large contributor to nuclear energy cost anyway, so this is no argument against nuclear energy.
> So yes, France's energy is cleaner, but it's a complicated picture.
I don't see how it is "complicated". Nuclear is clearly much better than Germany's coal+renewable. (Renewable-only was not an option since wind and solar are extremely volatile.)
- lopis 3y agoIt's complicated in the political sense. They are spelunking former colonies to meet green energy targets, while those same countries struggle to progress.
- mahkeiro 3y agoWhat are you talking about? Today less than 12% of French import of uranium are coming from Niger a former French colony. The main sources are Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Australia.
- adev_ 3y ago> It's complicated in the political sense. They are spelunking former colonies to meet green energy targets, while those same countries struggle to progress. It is wrong and a lie. Most uranium bought by (EDF) France lately come from Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan and Ouzbekistan. Definitively not countries you can name as "Colonies".
- Moldoteck 3y agoNot only most of the bought fuel comes from other countries, including Canada, but 17% of their electro energy is generated by reprocessed nuclear fuel, also produced in France