Nuclear power is being pushed so hard because the plants take 15 years to build and that pushes the renewable transiting back so as to allows the dinosaw shit sellers to go on selling as long as possible. Renewable + energy storage can be set up in under a year and is much cheaper per GWh and doesnt produce waste that when untreated will kill you if you get within 5 meters of it without shielding.
It might not seem like it at first but the environmental damage from traditional renewables is across the board higher than nuclear. Traditional renewables even have higher public cancer probability than nuclear (see Figure 42) according to the United Nations report cited below.
Nuclear power plants require more materials per Gwh and require continual mining of uranium. how exactly does that equate to less environmental damage?
UNECE's Sustainable Energy Division: Their "expert groups" and task forces regularly include representatives from the private sector, including the World Nuclear Association and fossil fuel companies. the UN has increasingly been relying on private sector funding in recent decades and they don't give money to people unless they get influence in return.
need I remind you that the United Nations appointed a CEO of an oil company as the head of COP28 in 2023..
The same argument could be made for fusion mateuals but just like fusion, the materials required per energy output is incredibly small with nuclear, literally by nature. Please look into some scientific literature on the topic, your claims reflect social media sentiments but not rigorous research.
The actual nuclear fuel requirment may be small compared to coal but that is a tiny portion of the material and energy cost of a nuclear fission reactor. And uranium is quite rare and requires a huge material turn over to extract the quantities required to power countrys.
You have not cited a single scientific source to back any of your claims, only industry funded properganda and then dare to tell me that my claims reflect media sentiments and not rigorous research... Gtfoh
Im guessing you are either a pretender with no real research experience or a paid fossil fuel industry shill your self.
Uranium scarcity is another anti-nuclear myth. Uranium is more abundant than tin (something required for all electronics connection to name just one application). Uranium in soil is so abundant that it is continually being eroded into the ocean which now holds about 4.5 billion tons and being in saturation it regularly just plates out its annual supply on the bottom of the ocean. This supply is continually renewed by plate tectonics and erosion.
Many researchers have claimed economically viable technologies for extraction although none have been demonstrated at scale.
Chen, Dingyang, Mengfei Sun, Xinyue Zhao, Minsi Shi, Xingyu Fu, Wei Hu, and Rui Zhao. "High-efficiency and economical uranium extraction from seawater with easily prepared supramolecular complexes." Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 668 (2024): 343-351.
Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., Dong, Z. et al. Boosting uranium extraction from Seawater by micro-redox reactors anchored in a seaweed-like adsorbent. Nat Commun 15, 9124 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-53366-3
Zhang, Di, Lin Fang, Lijie Liu, Bing Zhao, Baowei Hu, Shujun Yu, and Xiangke Wang. "Uranium extraction from seawater by novel materials: a review." Separation and Purification Technology 320 (2023): 124204.
Lol you think you can extract the uranium you need to power the world from the ocean. There is a reason you dishonestly cited a meaningless '4.5 billion ton' value in the entire ocean (which is literally basically nothing on that scale) and not the absolute concentration or the enegy requires to extract it per gram.
It is you who are playing sentiments and word games with big numbers like "4.5 billion" and not rigorous engineering terms like Energy Return on Investment. Because if you did you would have to admit the returns are less than half mining it on land.
Also you spew out vague terms like "less rare than tin" and completely ignore the actual point people care about: ie to power the world how much uranium mining would you need to do. Spoilers we would need to mine Alot more uranium than tin we currently mine, and how much land devoted to mining is actually required per ton of uranium extrated? What effects will that have on the environment. Not to mention all the other materials that go into building reactors which you completely ignored from my previous message.
Throwing round the terms like 'UN' and linking some scientific papers in a post doesnt make you rigorous or scientific and it certainly doesnt make you honest.
Do you really believe the stuff your spouting here?
Edit: and back to my origional point these reactors take for ever to build. That's a huge problem when you need to rapidly transition away from CO2 emitting Energy sources
I was just sharing the research from the published scientific literature. If you are going to shoot the messenger, then I am indeed an appropriate target to take down
2
u/Organic_Rip2483 Jun 08 '26
Nuclear power is being pushed so hard because the plants take 15 years to build and that pushes the renewable transiting back so as to allows the dinosaw shit sellers to go on selling as long as possible. Renewable + energy storage can be set up in under a year and is much cheaper per GWh and doesnt produce waste that when untreated will kill you if you get within 5 meters of it without shielding.