In emissions terms I understand that nuclear power is far from 'low carbon', once you include the emissions involved in construction and fuel generation.

I think a lot of greens are wary of nuclear power as they see it as a front for nuclear weapons (don't forget the 'peace' in Greenpeace's name!).

Environmentalists generally advocate decentralised solutions that give people autonomy (e.g. rooftop solar). Nuclear power is basically the opposite of that.

It doesn't matter anyway, nuclear power isn't a solution. At best it's a bandaid.

First, mining uranium is not exactly environmentally friendly and those involved in the mining process are at a considerably higher risk of lung and non-lung cancers.

Second, it takes about 10 metric tons of raw uranium to make enough low enriched uranium to generate 400 million kilowatt-hours of electricity. If you take known reserves, and estimated undiscovered reserves, we only have 200ish years worth at current energy demands.

Energy demands increase over time, for example we are generating 4x the energy we were in the early 1970s and more and more people are being able to afford electronic devices, if you go adding electric vehicles in worthwhile numbers you'll see a rapid spike as well so if we switched the entire world over to uranium based power, we might have 50 years worth.

Even if you then use the waste from those reactors, via a different process like YC funded Oklo Inc is attempting to do using nuclear waste as an energy source, you still might only buy the world a century of clean nuclear energy.

The amount of fuel that you're quoting assumes that we don't ever reprocess the spent fuel. While the US doesn't do this due to proliferation concerns, it's possible to dramatically increase the longevity of nuclear power by doing so. This is likely what Oklo is doing.

All we need are a couple of centuries to develop better technology than nuclear. We don't need it forever. It buys us time until we can develop storage and eliminate the need for fueled baseload power entirely.

>First, mining uranium is not exactly environmentally friendly and those involved in the mining process are at a considerably higher risk of lung and non-lung cancers.

Hey buddy, the mining isn't much cleaner for the lithium, the cobalt, the REEs, the copper, or really anything required for PVs or the batteries which store their energy. And at least most of the uranium supply is in developed countries.

It's not economical anymore compared to renewables once you factor in decommissioning costs.

Heck if you actually factored in the externalities then coal/oil/gas would also not be economical.

This is a quite questionable statement. There was a post here at HN a few days ago [1] and the article [2] says:

"Meanwhile, global warming lurches ahead. Greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow. So do solar and wind power. But do you know how much of the world’s primary energy comes from fossil fuels today? It’s 81 percent—the same as in 2006."

I didn't check the numbers by myself, but it sounds reasonable: while renewable sources grow, the consumption grows as well. So maybe we need nuclear power too in addition to solar/wind/etc? I don't see too much alternatives around.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18411991

[2] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-we-nee...

Coal has been growing in developing nations because it's "cheaper" than renewables because the externalities aren't priced in.

Nuclear isn't an option, it's simply too expensive compared to renewables.

Here in The Netherlands there's pressure to close the last coal power stations. The liberals (i.e. Republicans minus the religious and racist blocks) have been pushing for new nuclear power stations only for the energy suppliers themselves to turn around and call them lunatics because renewables are better.

> Nuclear isn't an option, it's simply too expensive compared to renewables.

Sure, let's ignore energy storage and subsidies altogether. I would believe e.g. solar thermal in Spain to be cost-effective, but these empty claims of "cheap renewables" are tiring.

Greenpeace were against nuclear weapons originally, especially nuclear weapons testing. They protested effectively enough that the French government DGSE blew up their ship and killed a photographer.

Then they were against the dumping of nuclear waste at sea.

> Then they were against the dumping of nuclear waste at sea.

I don't get that either, seems like the ideal way to get rid of it. Cheap, secure and with negligible impact on people or the environment.

The more dangerous stuff is both chemically toxic and bio-accumulative. The ban on dumping chemical waste at sea was instituted (after pressure from Greenpeace) because in certain areas it was starting to breach safe levels for human consumption.

I can easily understand why Greenpeace, or anybody, would not dream about having a lot of people killed in another Chernobyl and ratio cancer skyrocketing for decades. Is just a matter of common sense.

Where "environment" we mean environment were humans can live. Otherwise one can claim that other non habitable planets are part of the "environment" too.