Why don't global warming alarmists advocate for more nuclear energy?

I think you're giving them too much credit for being smart enough to understand that nuclear energy produces less CO2 than coal.

Dude did you watch Chernobyl

quote:

---

Dude did you watch Chernobyl

---

yep sure did. A Chernobyl type failure will never happen here in the states.

Because mining and processing uranium is a dirty energy intensive business. Lots of waste produced with milling and energy production as well.

Because it's not about finding solutions, it's about destroying private industry, confiscating tax dollars, and money-laundering while pushing a communist agenda. The modern green movement is far more red than it is green. If they were serious, they'd be talking about fertilizer runoff creating dead zones, water pollution, and ways to cut down on plastic waste from Asia that is creating the great garbage patch, but instead, they focus on CO2. They focus on CO2 because it is a necessity that is a byproduct of literally everything you make, eat, breath, and consume. If they can tax that, they can control literally all human activity.

There's plenty that advocate for nuclear energy.

They also know the argument has lots of hurdles.

Disposal and location being the principal hold ups.

The ghosts of Chernobyl, Three Mile, and Fukashima are always gonna hover over as well.

Basically we should be piling money into how to recycle the waste but I'm not a nuclear scientist.

it is perceived as dirty, not necessarily the process but the nuclear waste. Even the nuclear waste, when compared to other waste from other energy sources is negligible.

So mostly its an effect of 3-Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.

quote:

---

Three Mile,

---

You’re right, people are still scared of this but most don’t seem to realize that nothing happened. No one was killed, got sick, and there was no impact on the environment.

quote:

---

The ghosts of Chernobyl, Three Mile, and Fukashima

---

Low natural gas prices allow gas fired generating stations to produce power at lower rates than nuclear.

Public Service commission isn’t keen on allowing more nuclear to be built because we the customers would have hefty rate increases to pay for construction and the electricity generated.

The good news however is new small footprint nuclear reactors are just about ready for sale.

This will allow existing nuclear sites to add capacity, cost effectively in the coming decade. It’s just not quite ready.

The two LA nuclear stations are licensed until 2044 (Waterford) and 2045 (Riverbend).

Though some nuclear plants in the northeast have been decommissioned before their license expired because they are losing money to gas and even coal fired plants.