Almost all of the EU's uranium also has to be imported from non-EU sources, just like fossil fuels. So it's not really better if you want actual energy independence.

But uranium is much easier to store due to its energy density, and we can rely on better sources for it such as Canada and Australia, and not questionable countries like for oil.

Yes. It is much better if Canada and Australia are left with contaminated tailings ponds, that are full of acidic and radioactive waste. Those countries are definitely nimby.

Tailings ponds exist for all mining. This is why groundwater leakage is a major issue in all mining operations. Regardless if you mine for steel, copper, coal, rare earth minerals, or uranium, operations like those will also bring to surface heavy metals, sulfides and radioactive contents.

Northern Sweden is known for its iron ore mines, and people who live anywhere near those areas are recommended to install radon detectors. The iron from those mines is then used in multiple countries, leaving behind the contaminated water and air in Sweden.

Coal, the current solution, is definitely a much better choice. No residual mess to clean up.

Kicking the climate change can down the road even farther requires a few more additional miracles. Heck, we still don’t see climate change as a major problem:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/20/us/politics/climate-chang...

France's Uranium strategic reserves are 3 years. The main supplier is Canada. France has Uranium mines, but they were closed since it was cheaper to import. They still do exist, though.

My main point was we could have avoided half a century of massive coal usage. 40% of global power is still from coal.

It appears that we still need to resort to coal instead of renewables:

https://globalnews.ca/news/8993093/german-europe-coal-energy...

Mostly because it's not financially interesting, in the same way that the US did not pump oil on its own territory for the longest time because it wasn't worth it. There are 200 uranium mines in France.

Yes, I agree. Coal was much cheaper. Back to my “pay now, pay later” point.

Uranium fuel is a non issue. It's imported because there are very cheap sources abroad and it's a tiny fraction of nuclear power cost. There are known uranium sources in France, they're just not exploited at the moment because that would be a waste of money. But they're there in case demand rises.

How many cargo planes with Uranium do you have to fly to satisfy the entire requirement of France for a year?

Compared to the same for LNG?

> the world refused to adopt over the past 30 years.

Are you pro building nuclear plats in every region on earth?

Should developing countries build their own nuclear industry or be dependent on foreign powers for their basic electricity?

What is wrong with nuclear plants in every region?

In some regions it is harder to ensure that nobody steals radioactive material or blows the plant up than in others.

Are any of these regions in the top 10 or 15 world economies?

Someone is trying to waste everyone’s time by saying “you want nuclear energy everywhere?!”

Small countries are a rounding error for global emissions.

If the world’s 10 or 15 largest economies…

> Small countries are a rounding error for global emissions.

Not if they are allowed to develop too. Are they not allowed to develop to western living and energy use standards per capita?

Nope. I’ll let you do the math.

Here’s a hint. China and India combined have 2.5 billion people

Taking before pandemic numbers of GDP and population numbers by 2100 from here https://www.populationpyramid.net/population-size-per-countr... , the top 15 of economies will only account for 40% of world population. ~25% coming from India and China as you said.

So 6 billion people living in these "small economy countries" will not appreciate your sentiment.