As you can see in France, you don't make money with nuclear power.
Nuclear power is basically taking a loan (national security and trash which has to be stored at least thousands of years) with a huge risk (nuclear disaster like Chernobyl or worse).
Nuclear power is basically taking a loan (national security and trash which has to be stored at least thousands of years) with a huge risk (nuclear disaster like Chernobyl or worse).
It's France 9th biggest export.
Now imagine infinite uranium and everyone using nuclear power. Where would they export now?
This kind of misguided thinking has stopped us from utilizing nuclear power properly. It is a greatest stopgap we have before we find a way to store energy properly and can pivot to renewables.
CO2 isn't a problem of renewables.
In Germany, the problem with renewables is massively scaling green gas production. Storage exists plenty fairly cheap, even for hydrogen (Underground).
Renewables aren't available 24/7, as they work in cycles in most cases(sunlight, tides, waves, wind - geothermal and hydroelectric is an exception, but latter also has problems with damages to ecosystem, and handling sediment travel along the rivers) - this is the most basic problem with them. Grid demands electricity in a way that does not align with the renevable's production, so you need buffers.
So you need to build both energy storage, and energy generation - both are source of pollutants, and eRoI over the whole lifecycle isn't actually that impressive. It is a way to go though, but we are far off from fully transitioning to it.
if you genuinely have to ask that question, you need to read more about energy before you start discussing it. and especially about modern nuclear reactor designs, and how catastrophe in Chernobyl happened(forced orders from above, basically a human failure)
even low efficiency (e.g. hydrogen) is tolerable when renewables otherwise would go to waste
also the amount of storage you have to build also damages the ecosystem.
It's not even close in the same ballpark.
An not every materials production implies inherent co2 emissions.
the amount of storage build for spent nuclear fuel+energy buffer vs buffer for just renewables aren't even in same ballpark. Just do a simple fermi estimation. Btw - the white "smoke" coming out from cooling towers of nuclear power-plant are pure water vapor.
And that's not even going into MSFTs or other reactor types. just traditional ones.
Honestly, such blind faith is actually hurting renewables movement by giving climate change deniers more ammo to pummel the movement with.
I meant the amount of concrete needed (nuclear ppl vs energy storage)
> such blind faith is actually hurting renewables movement by giving climate change deniers more ammo to pummel the movement with.
what faith? renewable vs nuclear debate has nothing to do with the question of the existence of climate change