(10-16-2022, 01:58 AM)DJC date Wrote:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energ...SKBN1W909JThis highlights the very problem I'm discussing, the analysis of energy sources is completely subjective, and the outcome of any report is based on arbitrary selection of the metrics used in reporting.
https://thebulletin.org/2019/06/why-nucl...-about-it/
And a counter view:
https://www.mackinac.org/blog/2022/nucle...understood
The more inclusive you make the measures, the less difference there really is in terms of cost and environmental impact. For example, just because Solar PV doesn't make a mess in your own backyard, at least not at first until you have to dispose of redundant panels, doesn't mean it is not filthy and harmful on a global scale. The atmosphere is a closed system, just like fresh air the filth doesn't stop at the customs and quarantine border, it's not stopped by border control!
What is more, the total risk profiles over a long period are quite similar, just each has it's own strengths and weaknesses, in other words differences.
Even the A-Grade standard for future clean energy, fusion, has it's risks and issues when fully accounted for, there is no solution that offers a free lunch.
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"