I was referring to your statement that nuclear have higher emissions that solar and wind. I never stated that nuclear is carbon negative or neutral. I was arguing against you statement that nuclear have higher CO2 emissions than wind and solar per produced kWh.
Out of scope of the argument, but if we do consider that nuclear allows for the production of stable and abundant power and allows other industries to switch to electricity could be made into an argument that nuclear reduces CO2 emissions overall, even if the actual power-plant does not. Electric cars or electric foundries or cement-production to name a few would reduce the amount of fossil fuels that we use. Solar/Wind for foundries or cement-production not really viable due to a loss of power will result in costs of millions. But that was not the argument made, just wanted to point out a flaw in your argument and maybe introduce some new viewpoints.
One of your credible references is only about nuclear, no comparison to either wind or solar.
The second link is from a green "activist" news-source and third one is a reporter trying to make an argument against nuclear.
Only the first one is from a credible source, but that one does not compare CO2 emissions between the different technologies so does not say anything except comparing different nuclear-plant technologies against each other.
The links i referenced are studies on actual released CO2 during the whole lifetime (building, producing years and retirement). Do check the links from that article that points to the different studies that they use the data from.
The second is from the UN that published a study around nuclear-power that points out that nuclear power is the energysource that have the greatest impact, at least short term, in reducing our CO2 emissions.
So once again. Please provide references to *any* scientific journal that compares the lifetime emissions of nuclear, solar and wind. The comparison should be within a single study to make sure they calculate the construction, production years and retirement the same way. Most studies try to estimate CO2 released for concrete as an example and these estimations can differ quite a bit. Some may include CO2 released for transporting things while others may not.
This is why it's important to use a single study for comparing wind/solar/nuclear.
When considering nuclear-power we should also include that most of these reactors can be utilized quite a few years without any extra CO2 being released, and you have people fighting over shutting down our existing ones.
The Reuters article mainly considers bulding traditional nuclear-plants and does not consider variants that are more efficient and require much less material to produce. The huge cooling-towers (and containment on inner-core breach) for example are not a required on liquid salt reactors as they run at low-pressure and a breach of the core would not cause a catastrophic breach of the core that would need to be contained in such a large volume.
Even if this is a generic article it gives a brief introduction into the new technology TerraPower's reactor is using.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/1...
I do not ignore facts that are inconvenient, i read up on them and adjust my view based on what the facts say..
I do not consider opinions, like the Reuters article, as facts.