The case for nuclear power as a low carbon energy source to replace fossil fuels has been challenged in a new report by Australian academics.
It suggests greenhouse emissions from the mining of uranium – on which nuclear power relies – are on the rise.
Availability of high-grade uranium ore is set to decline with time, it says, making the fuel less environmentally friendly and more costly to extract.
The findings appear in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.
Of course they do. Anything to wack out the best power source we have available to us today.
My question is, what do all the climahysterics suggest we use? Nuclear is out, oil is out, coal is out, they block transmission lines from solar plants and block building windfarms. Burning trees is bad (I’ll agree with that.) The hard core environmentalists block the building of power producing dam’s. So, what do we do? That is the part that they always forget to mention.
Solar has possibilities, of course, but, consider that the best available technology requires 5 square miles of land to put the solar receptors on in order to light up San Diego. The land has to be tree free. So, it cannot be done across the world. Maybe one day it will be feasible.
So, what do the climaysterics want to do? Go back to living like it was 1599, I suspect. Back to the story
The authors based their analysis on historical records, contemporary financial and technical reports, and analyses of CO2 emissions.
How about hard scientific data? Sorry, sorry, forgot, climahysteria is about feelings, not facts. My bad!
well the first thing to do is reduce consumption
things like turning out the lights when you do not need them. The first things that should be done are ther simplest.
The second thing that should be done is probably for you to stop focusing on the fringe elements in the debate. Of course they make easier targets but they just make you look a bit lame by suggesting that anyone who believes in the danger of global climate change is a luddite.