Same for natural gas, far cleaner than coal, no dice with the environuts.
Seriously? You can’t imagine why an environmentalist might be against nuclear power?
No, I can’t, not modern design ones at any rate. They are far and away greener than the other viable alternatives.
Define “greener” if you could.
Umm, pollutes less.
Is nuclear waste not a pollutant?
Yes. And? If something pollutes a lot and something else pollutes less is it not greener?
This depends a lot on how one weighs the relative “pollution” of different substances.
Is a ton of nuclear waste the same as a ton of coal ash? I don’t think so.
Is that the only pollution involved? I thought carbon was a pollutant? Better up your ton of pollutant count.
It’s the cleanest energy source in the world. And as long as regulations are followed it’s safe and efficient.
Spent nuclear fuel is highly radioactive and dangerous, yes.
That is why it must cooled and stored properly. That is why it is heavily regulated.
But during power generation operations there is nothing else that competes with nuclear in terms of environmental friendliness. Only solar and wind are competitive with it but they also lack the peak demand generation capabilities that nuclear power provides.
And modern designs are far safer than they used to be as well. Fukishima was practically built in the stone age, 1971.
It was merely an example to illustrate my point which you seem to be dodging.
Have any “modern” design reactors been built?
The world supply of useful uranium is not as great as people assume.
Mass expansion of nuclear power has serious issues with fuel supply.
No it doesn’t
You really need to get your head out of three mile island technology levels.
Let me know when that is shown to work on an industrial scale. I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Any “modern” reactors ever been built?