You lecture me as though I declared fossil fuel technologies viable, when I did the complete opposite. I EXPLICITLY agreed with you that the climate situation was dire and required drastic action. You are not the only who can open a science book, believe it or not.
And yes, the production of PVs and pretty much ALL high tech hardware requires the use of toxic processes. That would certainly include nuclear power plants. The uranium ore doesn't magically leap out of the ground and process itself into enriched reactor-grade uranium. Lots of fossil fuels are needed, and certainly lots of toxic chemicals as well for the enrichment process. You conveniently leave out the people who would die as a result of the burning of fossil fuels and the production of toxic chemicals to run a nuke when citing all the deaths from bad air.
I AGREE (please note this carefully) that nukes are LESS toxic than fossil fuel plants, but I DISAGREE that solar and wind facilities are as bad as fossil fuel plants. Like nukes, they are cleaner, but still have a toxic impact.
Nuclear energy, especially if we could get some 4gen reactors built would be a great. But, we still run into the problem that no matter how safe the design, it would be immediately undermined by corporate profiteers looking to cut costs and maximize profits. Also, the process of creating fuel means the expenditure of carbon into the atmosphere and the production of toxic by products at all levels of construction and operation.
So, in my view, nukes are PART of the solution, but are still problematic, as is solar and wind power. But they are still WAY cleaner than fossil fueled plants.
But, I am certain I will never be convinced you of this, so I bid you good day and have a nice weekend.
= new reply since forum marked as read
