Your statement is specious at best and you need a full breakdown spelling out how you expect me to believe it with citations and evidence.
The Union of Concerned Scientists disagree, stating:
Despite these environmental impacts, renewable energy technologies compare extremely favorably to fossil fuels, and remain a core part of the solution to climate change.
Think it over: renewables produce industrial construction waste - carbon fiber, aluminum, composites etc., ONCE. during construction and erection (hehe). Then they run for decades. At the end of their lifecycle, especially for solar, there’s already tremendous effort going into recycling.
Your nuclear reactor is producing it 24/7/365 every day it’s in operation, for decades hopefully. But it also requires thousands of tons of concrete (huge emissions creator), a water supply that won’t ever be interrupted, and hardening against terrorist attack etc. Represents a shitton of material costs alone, before you get to processed fuel rods.
Retaining the investment already made makes sense; crashing a program of nuclear plant production to meet the need - no. The enormous amount of time and energy used to create these plants, and the humongous regulatory hurdles in the way, with STILL NO CLEAR PATH FOR THE HORRIFIC NUCLEAR WASTE THEY PRODUCE, don’t justify it.
Finally, consider lifetime operational safety in a wildly changing climate: are we going to have more wildfires and hurricanes in the future? YES. Which is better to burn or tsunami - a coastal nuclear power station, or a wind farm? Drought is going to become a constant thing. How many wind farms melt down without water? Try that with a steam powered nuclear station.
Renewables generate more toxic waste per mWh than any nuclear reactor design.
Your statement is specious at best and you need a full breakdown spelling out how you expect me to believe it with citations and evidence.
The Union of Concerned Scientists disagree, stating:
Despite these environmental impacts, renewable energy technologies compare extremely favorably to fossil fuels, and remain a core part of the solution to climate change.
Think it over: renewables produce industrial construction waste - carbon fiber, aluminum, composites etc., ONCE. during construction and erection (hehe). Then they run for decades. At the end of their lifecycle, especially for solar, there’s already tremendous effort going into recycling.
Your nuclear reactor is producing it 24/7/365 every day it’s in operation, for decades hopefully. But it also requires thousands of tons of concrete (huge emissions creator), a water supply that won’t ever be interrupted, and hardening against terrorist attack etc. Represents a shitton of material costs alone, before you get to processed fuel rods.
https://www.oneearth.org/the-7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-is-not-the-answer-to-solve-climate-change/
Retaining the investment already made makes sense; crashing a program of nuclear plant production to meet the need - no. The enormous amount of time and energy used to create these plants, and the humongous regulatory hurdles in the way, with STILL NO CLEAR PATH FOR THE HORRIFIC NUCLEAR WASTE THEY PRODUCE, don’t justify it.
Finally, consider lifetime operational safety in a wildly changing climate: are we going to have more wildfires and hurricanes in the future? YES. Which is better to burn or tsunami - a coastal nuclear power station, or a wind farm? Drought is going to become a constant thing. How many wind farms melt down without water? Try that with a steam powered nuclear station.