>>12055765So if we compile it altogether.
Nuclear wins in construction against some other forms of power generation. Where solar's greatest environmental impact lies in its construction in the use of materials and chemicals it produces energy after it's construction for free until the end of its life cycle. Wind and hydroelectric require more cement per kilowatt hour but may have a longer lifespan than nuclear because even the most sturdily built nuclear plant must be decommissioned after 50 years due to the breakdown of the reactor due to longterm exposure to radiation. This is unavoidable and inevitable. It'll put that as a win for neither. It does win of course against coal, oil, and natural gas.
Nuclear loses in power generation because of uranium mining however it wins in regards to it's operational waste being primarily waste heat. This is what most people think of in how nuclear power benefits the environment because its operational impact is mostly in water and heat but most people seem to forget that uranium mining is pure and utter garbage or maybe they forget that nuclear power generation is not free because they separate nuclear power itself from uranium mining and simply don't bother connecting the two as if uranium comes from space.
Despite this however it is far far far safer than the burning of fossil fuels because, despite how dangerous uranium mining is this is nothing compared to the environmental impact caused by smog directly and climate change indirectly.
Nuclear loses handily in decommissioning because we still haven't figured out long term solutions to nuclear waste disposal.
Nuclear wins heavily in accidents compared to fossil fuels though this may be due to the relatively small number of nuclear plants. This would remain to be seen if nuclear is scaled up.
So how does nuclear fare? I'd rate it a 7 out of 10. It's brilliant shit when compared to fossil fuels but not so great against renewables like solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal.
