On Friday, 3 February 2017 20:15:22 UTC, AnthonyL wrote:
I'm a bit out of my depth in an argument I'm having with someone on
the viability of nuclear energy production.

They are arguing that the green argument is false because of the cheap
uranium processing that keeps greenhouse gasses in the southern
hemisphere and the massive energy requirement to build a power station
in the first place.

I know the energy densities of the fuels are massive compared to
fossil but need some help in countering the argument, with facts.

Thanks

--
AnthonyL

The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of dealing with the nuclear waste.
This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to do it.
If they did, they'd be doing it but they aren't.
It is just in temporary storage at the moment.
With no viable permanent solution even in sight.
Quite a few failed projects.

https://www.iaea.org/inis/collection...1/41021977.pdf

Costs at Hinkley point escalating.
Similar projects over budget and long overrun on completion.