On 04/02/2017 09:33, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:

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.

You keep saying this but it's a lie.

This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to do it.

Yes they do and its being done.

If they did, they'd be doing it but they aren't.

Yes they are.

It is just in temporary storage at the moment.

So?


Its not a lie to harry as he is so scared that there is no way to treat
nuclear waste. Shame really as he has been living with radioactivity for
all his life and it hasn't killed him. However there is always hope.