Obviously the problem here is that not enough plants are being built, not that there is a problem with the energy source itself.
The article, however, does its best to make this seem like a negative for the power source.
It is not an article, it is the peer reviewed science that was used by the European Parliament and other credible bodies. This is what scientific research on the Nuclear Industry found.
to attribute all of the energy going into uranium enrichment and other accociated energy needs to energy produced from CO2 emitting sources when a nuclear power plant produces electricity at vastly greater scales then what is required for these things.
*IF* it was able to extract the potential energy there instead of the 0.3% that reactor technology can extract.
I'll admit though, after two completely bogus claims I stopped reading so maybe that site has something that stands up to simple reasoning somewhere in its contents.
And what do you offer to back up the claim that the actual science is bogus? FYI, these are the Universities internationally that contributed to the report. Australia. University of Sydney, University of New South Wales, Monash University, Belgium. NPX Research Leuven, IMEC Leuven, Germany. Universität Regensburg, Öko Institut Darmstadt, Italy. University of Florence, Netherlands. University of Utrecht, Technical University Eindhoven, ECN Petten, Singapore. National University of Singapore, Spain. Bank of Spain Economics
Switzerland. CERN Geneva, ETH Zürich
UK. Imperial College London, University of Edenburgh, Oxford Research Group London, USA Brookhaven National Laboratory, Columbia University New York, Princeton University
If you are able to overcome your prejudices and stop relying on your assumptions then you might learn what and why the issues exist.