>>11165012>land useIncorrectly assumes nuclear reactors can't be placed together on the same piece of land.
>LifetimeDoesn't explain why this replacement rate is unrealistic for multiple countries all around the world operating at the same time. Also ignores that modern reactors last longer than 50 years.
>Nuclear wasteIgnores that we have been storing nuclear waste for decades safely without a permanent solution. Ignores that permanent solutions exist but are held up by fearmongering and NIMBYism.
>AccidentsIncorrectly claims that all nuclear accidents were unforeseeable and can't be solved by improved safety measures.
>ProliferationIgnores that only a handful of countries are actually a proliferation risk and have the means to exploit nuclear technology even if it's given to them.
>uranium abundanceIgnores harvesting of uranium from seawater, a virtually infinite supply that we can already do today and will only become easier if demand for uranium increases.
>uranium from seawater would depleteIgnores that seawater is constantly being replenished with uranium freon the sea floor.
>exotic metalsIgnores that these metals are actually quite common and found in many sites already being mined today.
Even if you ignore these glaring flaws in Abbott's analysis, the biggest problem with this analysis is that he completely ignores the alternatives. Fossil fuel plants require land and parallel construction. Solar panels require exotic metals. Fossil fuels creates air pollution that kills millions of people annually and is not safely stored like nuclear waste. Renewables are inconsistent and cannot provide baseloads globally. Fossil fuels cause global warming. A fair analysis shows nuclear is the best option.
