Did you even glance at the numbers?

    Tech       gCO2/kWh
    
    Coal         920 
    Gas          490
    Solar-Util    48
    Solar-Roof    41
    Solar-Conc    27
    Geothermal    38
    Hydro         24
    Wind-Offshore 12
    Nuclear       12  <---
    Wind-Onshore  11

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emis...

It's my understanding that these numbers are not undisputed. Even https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1530-9290... lets enough opportunity to have that calculation be changed, though there does not seem to be any doubt that the emissions are minimal compared to fossil fuels. But that's not a point I made.

But you are right, I shouldn't have made it sound as if no one produced such numbers.

Even if it is a full order of magnitude larger, it still compares quite favourably to fossil fuels.

Right, that's part of what I was citing. But the people vehemently opposing nuclear power plants, like me, are generally also opposing fossil fuels. So that doesn't change anything.

Maybe you do, but most people "vehemently opposing nuclear power plants" only pay some lip service to fossil fuels. I've yet to see an anti-nuclear activist declaring that Germany and Japan have nothing to be proud of, considering their carbon footprint. Granted I didn't search very hard, but every anti-nuclear opinion piece I've come across praises how "Germany and Japan showed" that it's possible to shut down nuclear power. The staggering environmental cost of fossil fuels is at best left in a footnote.

Nevertheless, Germany's per capita CO2 emission per year is 9.44 tons [1], Japan's is 9.70 tons [2] and the US's is 15.52 tons [3] in 2016. Sorry, I couldn't find a more recent source. All that despite, Germany is shutting down nuclear and it has already reduced its usage of brown coal (Braunkohle) and stone coal (Steinkohle) in the last 10 years [4]. So, please explain how the US with higher relience on nuclear is faring better?

The valid criticism from many including the green party in Germany is, the shutdown of coal plant could go faster. But it already started.

[1]: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/germany-co2-emis... [2]: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/japan-co2-emissi... [3]: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/us-co2-emissions... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out#/media...

This criticism of the Energiewende is a core point of the program of the german green party, combined with the plan to end coal power as soon as possible.

That's not all you did.

This was done, the whole calculation, again and again, again and again, like this was done for solar pannels and wind turbine.

All the data is there, the IPCC even took the time to vulgarize this part because people don't seems to understand, took the highest evaluation wiht post-70s tech (12gCO2/MWh) and there is STILL people that talk about climate and don't even READ the IPCC document. I don't understand why you would talk about something this important and dont read the BASICS.

Like those climate denialist who "prove" that low atmosphere CO2 will make everything greener. WE KNOW! At least climate denialist have the excuse that this information is not easily accessible [0][1]. Everything else is written in the vulgarized papers, it a two hour-long read top, just take some time to inform yourself!

This is why nothing will never be done and we are hoping for a technological silver bullet, because people rather act like they care about climate than care about climate.

I'm angry.

[0] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/TAR-03.pdf [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-04.pdf

[edit] spacing, swear words.

Even counting for the whole life cycle, nuclear is a very small greenhouse gas emitter. One plant lasts decades and a very small amount of ore needs to be mined, because uranium is very energy-dense.

I think your point is valid, but lacks generality. Almost nothing we do is carbon neutral. Our energy production certainly isn't. Playing devil's advocate, PV and wind turbines also need to be built, transported, installed, disassembled, and disposed of, all of which emits greenhouse gases.

Yes but we would have decades of extra time to deal with global warming.

Instead, now we’re trying to shame people into flying less, which amounts to 2.5% of emissions a year..

Seems to be begging the question a bit. If 100% of energy came from nuclear, then maintaining it (and all other activities) would be 0-emissions. Construction work and transportation can surely be done electrically.

But producing and using cement would still emit CO2. That is part of the chemical reaction when it is mixed at a building site.

True. But in the long term, beyond the course of the cement's lifespan, that carbon will eventually be re-absorbed. Strictly speaking, therefore, cement is carbon-neutral.

At any rate - it's a truly miniscule amount of carbon anyway, when amortized over the plant's lifespan. If all of our power came from nuclear, we would not be worrying about greenhouse emissions from the concrete in their construction.