> Also, the very premise that more CO2 is existential is contradicted by historical record: 250 million years ago earth was 15 degrees warmer than it is now and CO2 was a lot more abundant.

Maybe this is just a joke that sailed over my head, but this is obviously false and doesn't mean anything of the sort. Existential for whom? All you can definitely conclude is that the Earth won't explode if the climate increases by 15 degrees. You can guess that life would survive, but there were no humans back (or large mammals at all) back then. There's no reason to think we would make it.

> The people controlling the media won’t allow it. This is common knowledge.

This is just rank conspiracism. I know of no evidence to suggest that the media are somehow controlling events (?), laws (?), the "narrative" (?), simply to prevent nuclear reactors from being built. How? For what purpose?

And claiming "this is common knowledge"? Maybe that was just another joke, because normally when one says a conspiracy theory is true, one also claims that this is secret information that has to be carefully mined out of various data sources, because if everyone knows something is happening it's usually not a very good conspiracy.

> simply to prevent nuclear reactors from being built. How? For what purpose?

If a country has sufficient nuclear energy then they are immune from international energy politics.

Two, I see that the oligarch class is using global warming alarmism as the driving narrative to move everyone to a carbon credit system, where payouts go to an unaccountable transnational elite.

Ironically, I believe that once the incentive structure is in place, there will be institutional force to keep you buying carbon (offsets) credits… forever.

The Earth will keep spinning round no matter what. It is ourselves who we harm

We see animals and people living with 15 degrees spread now. That won't change.. people and animals would exist at 25 degrees. Not as many and not in all places.. but we can be sure humans will survive somewhere aided by technology.

This is a striking example of what I've observed in many places which has often made me wonder why the intersection between nuclear advocacy and some form of climate change denialism is so large? The inconsistency is odd: "I passionately believe we should be using nuclear power to solve a problem I don't actually believe is a problem".

Eh it's probably just a version of "owning the libs". By and large the leftist environmentalists and "tree huggers" are anti-nuclear, so you basically annoy them in two different ways.

People believe if you truly care about reducing CO2 not using nuclear means you will not be able to move off of fossil fuels until we are well past too late.

It's the flaw that makes reducing global warming a talking point vs an actionable item. It's a big elephant in the room.

Until that gets resolved many will think some are spinning your wheels.

Nuclear fuel must first be mined, correct? That's not renewable and could offset the benefits somewhat. That said I imagine it may be better as a base load than dirty coal.

> That's not renewable and could offset the benefits somewhat

I don't think you realise the VAST amount of energy density in one 1kg of coal vs 1 kg nuclear fuel. "Somewhat" is not nearly the correct comparison !

"8 kWh of heat (energy) from 1kg of coal vs 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235" [0]

[0] https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/fuel-comparison/

Does that mean 1 tonne is enough to power the world for a year?

As far as I know that's pretty much exactly the amount of fissile material used annually world-wide.

The caveat is of course that for 1 kg of coal you have to dig up a lot less material than you have to for 1 kg of fissile material - U235 is around 1 % of natural Uranium, and Uranium is around 1 % of the ore.

Solar panels require minerals that must be mined too. Batteries are an even greater abomination.

Nuclear waste is also extremely compact.

Unfortunately our world is not run without the consumption of resources. There are trade offs to everything.

We’re not running out of fissionable material any time soon

What are the limiting inputs? Because I imagine there is a lot to do to go from the ground to the reactor and back again?

Breeder reactors produce more fuel than they consume.

Wouldn't that violate the second law of thermodynamics?

It isn’t creating more energy, it is just converting non-fissile material to fissile material

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

But we don't build breeder reactors. For reasons.