News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Nuclear is back on the table for a green future. Parent comment

Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future by Manuel_D on Thursday June 16, 2022 @01:48PM (#31768901)
> Uhh, mining and uranium enrichment and transportation all require fossil fuels, and more fossil fuel energy than a fueled nuclear produces in electrical energy.

Incorrect. Nuclear power actually has the second lowest net CO2 emissions per energy source, second only to hydroelectricity. Less than solar and wind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emis...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future by bob29 on Friday June 17, 2022 @10:47AM (#31779001)
So wrong its funny. Maybe if you assume the pre-existance of the nuclear supply chain due to a weapons program. I challenge you to actually follow the sources on any of estimates like that, or the hilarious "12g c02/kwhr" quote. It's all ESTIMATES (not measurements) FROM The nuclear industry. But keep on believing.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future by Manuel_D on Friday June 17, 2022 @07:04PM (#31785581)
The estimates are from the IPCC, not from the nuclear industry. This is stated in the article.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future by bob29 on Saturday June 18, 2022 @10:45AM (#31790249)
The IPCC did not do primary research. They cite a source. That source did not do primary research, either. The actual data comes from an estimate from the industry itself. The estimates came from costs. Estimating embodied fossil fuel energy based on cost is a not a bad estimation technique except when a huge amount of your supply chain is subsidized.
[ Parent | on HN ]